Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

BRITISH WATERWAYS BILL [Lords]

Queen's consent, on behalf of the Crown, signified.

Read the Third time, and passed, without amendment.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND INDUSTRY

Export Credits Guarantee Department

Mr. Battle: To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many firms in Leeds have benefited from ECGD funds in the last 12 months.

The Minister for Export Trade (Mr. Richard Needham): ECGD has supported one case in the last 12 months involving a firm based in Leeds.

Mr. Battle: Will not the future prospects for exporting from Leeds and other areas be jeopardised by the Department's proposals to fragment the regional DTI teams into Business Links, effectively reducing export advice and back-up? As the Barnsley Business Links already appears to be in financial difficulties and is laying off staff, will not the Department's proposals to strip down the regional DTI offices take effect at the price of exports and local jobs?

Mr. Needham: To ask a question on the Order Paper about ECGD and export insurance in Leeds and then follow it up by talking about Business Links shows the hon. Gentleman's lack of understanding and knowledge about exports. What the Government are offering through Business Links throughout the country is a service to exporters that will match anything offered by any of our competitors anywhere in the world. If the hon. Gentleman would come with me some day to see some of the Business Links he might have more idea of what he is talking about.

Mr. Riddick: Is my right hon. Friend aware that manufacturing companies in Leeds and in Yorkshire as a whole are more than playing their part in Britain's current superb exporting performance? ECGD funding can be helpful, but is not the most crucial factor in winning markets overseas that British companies should maximise their productivity and competitiveness, and that the British Government should not foist unnecessary rules and costs on to those companies? That is why we must stay well clear of the social chapter.

Mr. Needham: Leeds is one of the centres of British manufacturing excellence and has been for a century or more. Leeds, with our other great cities, is leading a

remarkable export success story. Our manufacturing record is now better than that of France, Japan or Germany. Perhaps Opposition Members might like to congratulate us on that.

Mr. Clapham: Has the sale of ECGD business to NCM encouraged more firms to invest in unstable areas of the world such as the former Soviet Union?

Mr. Needham: NCM is a short-term reinsurance cover for business, and has nothing to do with companies investing either in the former Soviet Union or anywhere else. Once again, the ignorance of Opposition Members is palpable to all.

Inward Investment (Lancashire)

Mr. Hawkins: To ask the President of the Board of Trade what measures he is pursuing to increase inward investment into Lancashire.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Industry and Energy (Mr. Charles Wardle): The Department continues to work with all local partners, including Inward, the regional development organisation, encouraging them to develop sites and premises of the quality and variety that will attract foreign-owned companies in the future.

Mr. Hawkins: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. Will he take all the steps that he can to ensure that companies are told about the excellent opportunities that exist based on the high-tech abilities of the work force in the Fylde coast area of Lancashire, including Blackpool, based on the success of companies such as British Aerospace, ICI, British Nuclear Fuels and many others in the area and based on the computer skills of the civil servants in the local Information Technology Services Agency? Will he continue, with his colleagues, to work with the Fylde Partnership and other organisations doing their best to bring inward investment to my constituency and the surrounding area?

Mr. Wardle: My hon. Friend is right to emphasise those points. He will know that the Fylde Partnership is doing a great deal to attract new technology to the area. The Government office is of course in regular contact. I know that my hon. Friend has invited the regional director to visit him in Blackpool for discussions, and I hope that he will encourage Blackpool borough council to join Inward. By way of background, he might like to know that the Invest in Britain bureau lists 30 projects, four of which are in Lancashire, with 2,100 jobs in the north-west. With my hon. Friend's help, no doubt more emphasis will be placed on Blackpool.

Mr. Pike: Does the Minister recognise that, although Burnley is being assisted by the KONVER programme, many parts of Lancashire—high-technology, high-skilled areas—are losing jobs as a result of the defence reductions? We need to project Lancashire as a highly skilled area and attract the right type of investment, using those skills to create jobs for the future.

Mr. Wardle: The hon. Gentleman will know that the provisional list of areas eligible for KONVER 2 in


Lancashire includes Burnley, Preston, Pendle and Fylde, but there is scope for additional areas to be nominated by 1 March. Representations will be considered carefully.

Mr. Mans: In connection with inward investment into Lancashire, when do the Government propose to rejoin the future large aircraft consortium? When is it likely that we will start to contribute money to that project, bearing in mind its importance to Lancashire and the north-west generally?

Mr. Wardle: My hon. Friend may be aware that we recently announced our intention to rejoin the consortium.

Regional Selective Assistance

Mr. Gunnell: To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many subsidiary companies with headquarters in the United States have received regional selective assistance since June 1979; and how many have since ceased operation in the United Kingdom.

The Minister for Energy and Industry (Mr. Tim Eggar): Since June 1979, 644 United States-owned subsidiary companies have received offers of regional selective assistance in Great Britain in relation to more than 900 projects. Of these, 167 projects did not proceed and 49 were not fully completed.

Mr. Gunnell: I thank the Minister for that information. I recognise that successful inward investment owes much to regional selective assistance and to the work of regional development organisations and the support of local authorities, but has the Minister analysed why some projects were not completed and others were unsuccessful? Has he made any comparison between our figures for incomplete investments and the corresponding figures for failures in continental Europe? If his theories about the social chapter are to be supported, one must show that on the continent there is a greater proportion of failures than in the United Kingdom.

Mr. Eggar: The facts speak for themselves. No less than 43 per cent. of all United States investment in the European Union has been made in the United Kingdom. That investment, which has mainly been made with the aid of regional selective assistance, has led to the creation of 100,000 extra jobs since 1979 and has safeguarded 60,000 jobs. That is a record of considerable success. The hon. Gentleman has a long record of working constructively on inward construction projects. I pay tribute to him because such work is very much a partnership. He will recognise that a great deal of work is going on. In particular, we place emphasis on the need for proper aftercare of companies that have made an investment. We need to work closely with them, monitor their experience and see whether we can improve the quality of our services. We also need to use them as ambassadors for other sources of inward investment for the future.

Mr. Brooke: Would my right hon. Friend—what a pleasure it is to call him that—care to take this opportunity to testify to the enormous contribution in

terms of economic activity, competition and transfer of technology made by American investment into Britain not only in the past 15 years but in the past 100 years?

Mr. Eggar: I thank my right hon. Friend for his first remarks. Britain's commitment to inward investment, as he rightly says, goes back many decades. It is extremely important to the economic success of the United Kingdom. The single most important factor is that an inward-investing company, whether it be American, Japanese, Korean or whatever, knows that once it has invested in the United Kingdom it will be treated by the British Government as a UK company and will be fully supported by us. There is no doubt that the rejuvenation in the past decade or so, particularly in the manufacturing sector, has largely been due to our success in attracting inward investment from established investors and from new ones.

Mr. Bell: Since it is still the season of good will, may I add the Opposition's congratulations on the right hon. Gentleman's elevation to the Privy Council? Will he confirm that the selective regional assistance packages that we offer are no greater than those offered by our European competitors through grants, financial incentives and soft loans? May I also congratulate the President of the Board of Trade on having seen off the former Chief Secretary to the Treasury, who did not believe in selective regional assistance and thought that it distorted the free market? Finally, can the Minister now reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Morley and Leeds, South (Mr. Gunnell) and congratulate local authorities, which play their full part, on putting together selective regional assistance packages?

Mr. Eggar: I welcome the peace and good will that appears to have broken out at this Question Time. I hope that it will be sustained during the coming months. Yes, I willingly pay tribute to the many local authorities that have taken a very constructive attitude to attracting inward investment, especially in the past few years. I also pay tribute to the training and enterprise councils, which have also come to the party, and to the private sector, which has helped. It is a co-operative partnership, which is working increasingly well and being increasingly successful.

Overseas Customers (Education)

Mr. Fabricant: To ask the President of the Board of Trade what surveys he has conducted into the educational background of overseas customers of British manufactured goods and services; and if he will make a statement.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Technology (Mr. Ian Taylor): We have not conducted any such surveys, but we are keen that overseas business men should develop a network of relations with the United Kingdom through education and training opportunities.

Mr. Fabricant: Before I came to this place, was I the only exporter to find that many customers had been educated and trained in the United Kingdom? Does my hon. Friend agree that the provision of education and training for overseas visitors in the United Kingdom, by organisations such as the British Council and others, is not charity but an investment for British trade and industry?

Mr. Taylor: My hon. Friend is exactly right and that is precisely why the Department of Trade and Industry


has a series of programmes with the British Council and the Foreign Office to encourage people to come to this country for education and training. I urge British companies to do more, so that they assist the familiarisation process with British goods, which will eventually lead to further export opportunities.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: If that is now so, what have the Government to say about the Foreign Office decision in the early 1980s to cut the very grants that are used to fund the education of overseas students coming to the United Kingdom? In so far as many Opposition Members thoroughly agree with the hon. Member for Mid-Staffordshire (Mr. Fabricant) on that issue, will the Government review that decision? Wherever one goes abroad, people in our overseas embassies repeatedly tell us that the restoration of those grants is critical to trade with the United Kingdom.

Mr. Taylor: The simple answer is that the number of overseas students in British universities and colleges of higher education is higher than it was when the grant changes were made. The reason for that is that the value to other people of the good education that they can get in this country is self-evident and it is not merely put down to cost.

Mr. Ian Bruce: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is the quality of British education and its representation around the world that sells it, not subsidies? What is his Department doing to ensure that British educational exports, of both products and services, receive the full backing that they need through our embassy and consulate network?

Mr. Taylor: We have established a whole network of overseas technical advisers in embassies and they are doing an excellent job, especially in the technical field, in ensuring that the advantages of British education and products are known. The export value of educational services is about £4 billion a year, which shows how important and successful that sector is to British performance overall.

EU Funding

Mr. Charles Kennedy: To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will outline progress towards the implementation of United Kingdom objective 1 funding; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Charles Wardle: In the six months since the adoption of new six-year programmes for the three UK objective 1 areas, grants of nearly £200 million have been approved to more than 1,150 projects.

Mr. Kennedy: I thank the Minister for that reply. Given the welcome nature of the structural funding available to the three areas in question, including the Scottish highlands and islands, does he agree that one of the implementation difficulties that seems to arise is that smaller business people rarely have the back-up required to make an application? They do not have the complex range and detail of professional services that are required, so the bulk of the funding understandably goes to local authorities, enterprise companies and so on, which have greater expertise at their disposal. Will the Minister and

his officials see whether more help can be given specifically to smaller business people so that they can get as much advantage from the funds as the bigger concerns?

Mr. Wardle: The hon. Gentleman highlighted the progress in his constituency as part of the highlands and islands objective 1 grant. I understand that £16 million of objective 1 grants have been approved for 208 projects. He will know from his constituency that some of them are fairly small sums, but he makes a perfectly valid point, which should be considered by the monitoring committees. If he approaches the appropriate Government office, I am sure that it will take the point on board and that the monitoring committees will want to think about it.

Mr. Salmond: Has the Minister analysed how the cuts in local authority finance in Scotland will impact on the ability of the highlands and islands and the north-east of Scotland to take advantage of objective 1 and objective 5b status? Would not it be ironic, if somewhat familiar, if benefits from Europe were undermined by the policies of the London Government?

Mr. Wardle: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman takes such a sour approach to the good news for Scotland. I hope that he bears in mind the fact that the six-year allocation of structural funds from 1994 to 1999 for the highlands and islands will amount to £263 million. That must be good news.

Mrs. Anne Campbell: Does the Minister recognise, however, that the squeeze on local authority spending may lead to an inability to take up European funds, particularly given the need for matching grants?

Mr. Wardle: The hon. Lady will want to bear it in mind that the keynote for regional policy should be value for money. In that context, local authorities could do a great deal more.

Tractor Plant (Basildon)

Mr. Amess: To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on the recent visit of the Minister of State to the tractor plant at Basildon.

Mr. Eggar: I visited the New Holland Ford facility, the largest agricultural equipment plant in the UK, last October. In addition to a tour of the plant, I had a very useful meeting with senior management from New Holland Ford and its parent company, Fiat.

Mr. Amess: Following my right hon. Friend's visit to Basildon, will he join me in congratulating the work force and management of the Fiat tractor plant on their success in increasing sales of their products throughout the United Kingdom? Following his discussions, does he agree that the pay and employment opportunities of the work force would have been adversely affected if our right hon. Friend the Prime Minister had not achieved the opt-out provisions in the Maastricht treaty?

Mr. Eggar: I join my hon. Friend in congratulating the plant's management and work force. It has been a major success story. Production is up by some 30 per cent. on three years ago, despite the fact that the overall market has fallen by some 26 per cent. in the same period.


[Interruption.] The Opposition seem to find it funny that my hon. Friend jokes at their expense because of their stance on the social chapter. Let me spell it out to them—

Madam Speaker: Order. I remind the Minister that we are not in debate. The question needs answering.

Mr. Eggar: May I emphasise to my hon. Friend, Madam Speaker, the message that we both received from the work force? It was that it is working on average 55 to 65 hours a week, which involves about 20 hours' overtime. The work force does that voluntarily and I am sure that my hon. Friend will not miss the opportunity to make it clear to these people that, if the Labour party were in power, they could not work that amount of overtime but would be limited to 48 hours a week.

Mr. Purchase: Does the Minister accept that it is illegal for horses to work more than eight hours a day? Although he claims that it is a great thing for people to work 60 hours a week, does he not accept that high skills and good investment in our plant represent a far better way to proceed in the last part of the 20th century and into the 21st century than keeping people at work for 60 hours a week?

Mr. Eggar: I see: so the new model Labour party will dictate to individual workers exactly how many hours they should work.

Association of South-East Asian Nations

Mr. Lidington: To ask the President of the Board of Trade what steps his Department is taking to foster British trade with ASEAN countries.

Mr. Needham: My Department now has in place a wide range of measures to promote trade with the ASEAN countries, including the appointment of six export promoters, who work with our embassies and the Department to provide first-hand advice and assistance to British companies exporting to ASEAN.

Mr. Lidington: I am encouraged by that answer. Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is very important to encourage not just established major British exporters, but small and medium-sized companies, which might feel daunted at the prospect of exporting to south-east Asia, to take advantage of those attractive markets?

Mr. Needham: My hon. Friend is right. For that reason, we are concentrating our efforts on small and medium-sized companies securing orders from ASEAN through the Business Links, the appointment of regional export advisers throughout the country, the provision of export promoters and the large number of additional missions that we are organising. The success of that policy is shown by the fact that, so far this year, our exports to ASEAN countries are up 26 per cent. and their exports to us, one of the most dynamic regions of the world, are up by 5.6 per cent.

Mr. Beggs: What progress are Northern Ireland companies making in developing exports to ASEAN? When might we expect investment to begin from the Investment Forum, which was successfully initiated in Belfast by the Prime Minister?

Mr. Needham: The last part of the hon. Gentleman's question is one for my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary

of State for Northern Ireland. On the first part of the hon. Gentleman's question, I can reassure him and the people of Ulster that companies from Northern Ireland are already enormously successful in ASEAN. For example Mivan is building 3,000 apartments in Thailand; Mackies of Belfast, which was almost on its back three years ago, is now successfully exporting to Indonesia and Malaysia; Shorts has won many orders in that part of the world; and Randox Laboratories has also been successful in the region.
I am sure that the advent of peace has given the business spirit of the people of Ulster an uplift. I have no doubt that those business people will become ever more successful in south-east Asia. I shall do my best to take those people with me whenever I go to that region.

Mr. John Marshall: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the growth of our exports to ASEAN is due in part to the buoyancy of the ASEAN economies? Does he further agree that that buoyancy exists because those economies are deregulated and do not suffer from the obligations and restrictions that the Labour party would impose on the British economy?

Mr. Needham: My hon. Friend is right that ASEAN represents the most successfull, most buoyant and fastest-growing economies in the world because they are capitalist to the core. They know what is important in trying to help the poorest of their people to get work and to improve their living standards. It would be a great help to British businesses if many more Opposition Members went to those countries to see those economies for themselves.

Building Societies Merger

Mrs. Mahon: To ask the President of the Board of Trade when he expects to receive the report of the Director General of Fair Trading into the proposed merger of the Halifax and the Leeds Permanent building societies.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Corporate Affairs (Mr. Jonathan Evans): My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade announced on 21 December that he had decided not to refer the proposed merger of the Halifax and Leeds Permanent building societies to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission. That decision was in accordance with the advice of the Director General of Fair Trading.

Mrs. Mahon: The Minister will be aware that the Halifax employs more than 3,000 people in my constituency and that the Leeds Permanent employs more than 1,000 people in Leeds. What steps will he take to ensure that promises to myself and my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett) that those jobs would be retained are kept? Will he further ensure that the strength of the proposed merger will not in any way disadvantage customers?

Mr. Evans: I think that the hon. Lady knows that the making of decisions about employment is a commercial matter, but that the parties have given reassurances—as she said—that any reductions necessary will be brought about only through voluntary redundancy and natural wastage.
However, I remind the hon. Lady that the decision that is made by my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade relates merely to those factors concerning


this matter which relate to the Fair Trading Act 1973. The decision on merger is a matter for the members of the building societies themselves. The hon. Lady also knows that, according to the Building Societies Act 1986, the Building Societies Commission will ensure that all the requisite information is given to members when the voting process is undertaken, and that, in the case of investing members, the decision must be passed by a majority of 75 per cent. of the people who participate.

Sir Donald Thompson: I thank my hon. Friend for those answers. Does he agree with me that the people of Yorkshire welcome the building of a huge financial institution by the merging of the Halifax and Leeds Permanent building societies, which will be able to compete, not only in the United Kingdom but throughout Europe?

Mr. Evans: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for those remarks. I am aware that the Director General of Fair Trading has received several representations in the period since the merger was announced, many of which were along the lines that have been outlined by my hon. Friend, drawing on the great financial tradition that exists in Yorkshire, Leeds and Halifax.

Dr. John Cunningham: Is not it surprising and questionable that a merger of such significance, involving £90 billion worth of assets and creating one of the largest financial institutions in Europe, with more than 25 per cent. of the domestic mortgage market and estimated dealings with about 45 per cent. of households in the country, should be nodded through, and the announcement made the day after the House had risen for the Christmas recess?
The merger may well have great attractions—as the hon. Gentleman said—and I am not saying that it will prove to be a bad thing, but it is of such a significance and scale that the employees and customers of the two societies were entitled to expect the most thorough and rigorous examination of all the aspects of it. They did not get it.

Mr. Evans: All the relevant factors were considered in the most thorough detail. I find the right hon. Gentleman's remarks somewhat surprising, especially in the context that he would have been the first to complain if staff and the societies had been kept waiting inexorably for a decision once the President of the Board of Trade was in a position to reach a proper decision. My right hon. Friend received the papers from the Director General of Fair Trading and gave at least six days' consideration to the recommendation that was made by the director general.
Finally, the right hon. Gentleman is among the first to suggest that the observations made by the Director General of Fair Trading do not receive sufficient attention by the Department of Trade and Industry. I find it surprising that on this occasion he should challenge the very recommendation that the President of the Board of Trade has decided to endorse.

Exports

Mr. David Evans: To ask the President of the Board of Trade what was the total value of exports (a) in 1993 and (b) in 1979.

Mr. Ian Taylor: Our visible exports were worth £121 billion in 1993 as compared with £40 billion in 1979.

Mr. Evans: Does the Minister agree that, when the lot opposite were last in government, they had record

exports? It was called the brain drain. Why? We had a 98 per cent. rate of tax, 27 per cent. inflation, and rats as big as cats running round Leicester square. Is not it a fact that the current Government have put the "Great" back into Britain through record exports?

Mr. Taylor: My hon. Friend shows admirable precision and clarity about the dangers of a possible Labour Government. Indeed, in expressing things so clearly, he is becoming the Newt Gingrich of British politics.

Mr. Hardy: The Minister might not agree, but were the hon. Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Mr. Evans) to emigrate, it would be no great loss. Would the Minister care to amplify his answer and tell the House the rate of imports in 1979 and last year, and the trade deficit in 1979 compared to that of last year?

Mr. Taylor: The hon. Gentleman would risk losing an item of national heritage in his wish to export my hon. Friend the Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Mr. Evans)—I certainly would not recommend that to the House. To answer the hon. Gentleman's question, imports rose in volume by 78 per cent. during the period that we are discussing. What is most interesting now is that the effects of the improvement in manufacturing productivity are now showing in manufacturing exports. Exports—which drive the economic recovery—were, in the third quarter of 1994, up 14 per cent. to the world and 19 per cent. to the EC. Rather than looking backwards, the hon. Gentleman should look forwards and welcome that tremendous economic performance.

Mr. Butcher: Almost unheralded and unnoted there has been an astonishing improvement in exports from the manufacturing sector, particularly the engineering sector, in the west midlands. Will my hon. Friend the Minister come and witness some of the improvements in Coventry, in companies such as GPT, Jaguar and Massey Ferguson? The most significant worldwide investment programme—investment in the new digital super-highways—is being led by GPT, which is currently exporting into 30 telecommunications networks around the world. Something dramatic is going on out there and we should recognise that.

Mr. Taylor: I strongly welcome my hon. Friend's comments. As he knows, I was in Coventry just before Christmas and know from first hand, being a Coventrian, the importance of industry to that city. Unlike Opposition Members, even The Guardian has caught up with the fact that high-tech industries lead our economic recovery, particularly in export markets. As the Minister with responsibility for technology, I am delighted about that—and not surprised because as I go around the companies I see how successful they are. Those companies all cite the fact that the stable economic background and low inflation in this country enable them to continue to be competitive in world markets.

Mr. Harvey: Do not the Government's claims on exports sit uncomfortably with the statistics of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development which show that Britain has the slowest rate of growth in exports of any G7 country since 1979? Is not one of the main reasons for that the fact that


manufacturing investment as a proportion of GDP fell to an all-time low in the first half of 1994 and has continued falling in recent quarters?.

Mr. Taylor: The reality is that the volume of UK-manufactured exports grew faster than those of France, Germany and Japan for the bulk of the 1980s. We should be pleased to accept that figure. The export volume of manufacturers in the third quarter of 1994 was up by 12 per cent. Opposition parties should welcome those figures as they create jobs in their constituencies. Occasionally, Opposition Members should not only welcome the figures, but give credit where credit is due—to the Government's economic performance.

Inward Investment

Mr. Waterson: To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement about the prospects for inward investment.

The President of the Board of Trade and Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Michael Heseltine): I am confident—[HON. MEMBERS: "Who he?"] And a happy new year to the Labour party, too.
I am confident that overseas companies will continue to recognise that the Government's economic policies make the United Kingdom an attractive place to do business and that we will remain the preferred location in Europe for foreign investment. The prospects are excellent, but success has to be worked for. For that reason I have strengthened my Department's Invest in Britain bureau, including the appointment of a chief executive from the private sector.

Mr. Waterson: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. Does he agree that one of the attractions to inward investors is the fact that in France, for example, about 29 per cent. of total labour costs go on non-wage social costs, whereas the equivalent figure in this country is only 17 per cent.?

Mr. Heseltine: My hon. Friend is right to state the discrepancies and problems that would arise from Brussels if we did not possess the opt-out to the social contract. The problems in Brussels are ever present in the mind of the Labour party, the leader of which has had to go to Brussels to put the boot in to members of his own party who are trying to upstage his, key proposals to modernise the Labour party—what a hope!

Mr. Stevenson: Is it not true that much of the so-called "investment" has been in the form of takeovers and asset swaps, some of which have turned out to be no more than asset strips? Is the President of the Board of Trade aware of the activities of the Dupont company, for example, which acquired much of the capacity of ICI and resulted in many plant closures and job losses?
Will the Minister inquire into that disgraceful situation involving a major American-based international company? Will he also ensure that the trade unions which represent the workers at the plant and which have been refused the information that they need in order to make representations on behalf of their members are given that information?

Mr. Heseltine: It is absolutely extraordinary: this country is facing some of the most exciting economic

prospects that we have enjoyed in decades and Opposition Members carp and moan as though the results are nothing like as good as they are.
It is time that the Opposition recognised that we have moved back into a balance of payments surplus. That is a huge tribute to the policies of the Government. Why cannot the Labour party tell people the good news and encourage, as opposed to constantly undermine, the efforts of the United Kingdom?

Mr. Page: While being grateful for and impressed by the huge amount of inward investment and the hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of jobs that have been created, will my right hon. Friend speculate about whether he believes that that inward investment flow will be enhanced or diminished by the Labour MEPs' enthusiasm for clause IV?

Mr. Heseltine: My hon. Friend raises the point to which I referred a moment ago. The Leader of the Opposition is flogging around Brussels at the moment because he is absolutely terrified of the damage that his own supporters are doing to his prospects of ever leading this country. I must say that my sympathies are all on the side of the Labour MEPs who are obviously determined—

Mr. Foulkes: On a point of order, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker: Order. Points of order come after Question Time, but I will anticipate what the hon. Gentleman wishes to say: at Question Time we deal with Government policy, not Opposition policy. I call Dr. Cunningham.

Dr. John Cunningham: Thank you, Madam Speaker. Good inward investment in the British economy is welcome. However, is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that inward investment from Hong Kong Land and the Swiss Bank Corporation is being conducted properly in the hostile takeover bid for Northern Electric? Is there not a case for an inquiry into the Northern Electric share dealings, for example? Is not there a question of insider dealing and the exploitation of legal loopholes by the Swiss Bank Corporation?
Is it acceptable that those practices should go on in a hostile takeover bid for a regional electricity company? Will those matters not set the trend for the future ownership of regional electricity companies? Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that there are so many questionable aspects to the bid that he should ask the Monopolies and Mergers Commission to investigate all parts of it?

Mr. Heseltine: The right hon. Gentleman raises some very important issues. He will understand that inquiries are being conducted in the proper manner and it would be quite inappropriate for me to add in any way to a general acknowledgement of those inquiries.

Mr. Sykes: Talking about inward investment and its importance in creating jobs, is my right hon. Friend aware that a large international company in my constituency, when faced recently with a decision about whether to build a new factory in France, decided not to do so because of the cost of the social chapter? It decided instead to double the size of the production line in Scarborough—much to the benefit of my constituents.

Mr. Heseltine: My hon. Friend gives the House more good news. Inward investment at present accounts for


17 per cent. of employment in this country, 23 per cent. of net output, and 33 per cent. of gross value added in manufacturing.

Carpet Manufacturers (Subsidies)

Mr. Illsley: To ask the President of the Board of Trade what representations he has made to the European Commission regarding illegal subsidies to European carpet manufacturers.

Mr. Eggar: The UK Government maintain regular contact with the Commission to monitor its progress in pursuing cases of illegal aid in this sector and will continue to do so to ensure that the Commission does not let the matter go by default.

Mr. Illsley: I am grateful for that response. Will the Minister press the EC particularly with regard to Belgium and the illegal subsidies that the Belgian Government have given to carpet manufacturers operating in this country—notably the Beaulieu and Fabelta companies? The Belgian Government were found guilty of supplying illegal subsides to those companies, thus allowing them to operate in this country to the detriment of British carpet manufacturers. I have a constituency interest in the matter. Shaw Carpets Ltd. in my constituency announced the redundancies of 50 per cent. of its work force over Christmas, and its difficulties arise, in part, from those illegal subsidies.

Mr. Eggar: I am well aware of the concern of the hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members on both sides of the House about the Belgian case in particular. As the House probably knows, Belgian aid to the Beaulieu carpet company, to which the hon. Gentleman referred, has been ruled illegal. The Belgian Government and the Belgian courts are currently involved in action to recover from the company aid that was given illegally and that is proceeding. The United Kingdom Government are keeping in close touch with the Commission to make sure that pressure is maintained to ensure repayment. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will welcome the United Kingdom's success in making sure that the Maastricht treaty provides for fines on member states that do not comply with judgments.

Mr. Anthony Coombs: While I welcome the new marketing efforts of the carpet industry, does my right hon. Friend agree that it is of concern that 52 per cent. of the British market in carpets is foreign supplied, and it has taken no fewer than seven years for the Belgian Government still not to pay back the £5 million subsidy they gave Beaulieu? In that regard, will my right hon. Friend engage with the European Commission to examine the possible subsidies on the cost of polypropylene to Belgian carpet companies to the competitive disadvantage of British carpet companies, which have seen polypropylene prices rise by 20 per cent. in the past year when there does not seem to have been an equal effect on Belgian carpet manufacturers?

Mr. Eggar: I assure my hon. Friend that we share his concern on that particular aid case and we are monitoring carefully the position in Belgium. We are keen to work closely with the British carpet industry to make sure that competition is absolutely fair and that the general state aid rules are applied evenly across the European Union.

Aerospace Industry

Mr. Barry Jones: To ask the President of the Board of Trade what was the amount of cash earned in Britain by the aerospace industry in 1993; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Eggar: Figures are not yet available for 1993. In 1992 the aerospace industry's contribution to GDP was £4.3 billion.

Mr. Jones: The figures are magnificent. They prove that British Aerospace plc is making a great contribution to British manufacturing and exports. With that in mind, does the Minister agree that it would be appropriate for the Government to give British Aerospace a vote of confidence by stating that the British Government will purchase the future large aircraft? Does he know that my constituents are experts in wing technology and already make the wing of the Airbus? They would be extremely keen to see the Government place that order. Additionally, perhaps British Aerospace could produce the successor to the aging Nimrod.

Mr. Eggar: I am aware of the important role that aerospace plays in the hon. Gentleman's constituency and the particular interest that he personally has displayed on behalf of his constituents and in support of British Aerospace. On 16 December my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Defence made an important announcement with regard to the FLA. He stated clearly that we will rejoin the FLA programme when it is managed commercially by the Airbus consortium. He also stated that we expect to have a requirement of between 40 and 50 FLA. His announcement was warmly welcomed by the aerospace industry and by British Aerospace in particular, as it included the announcement of an order for 25 C130J aircraft—that benefits some 36 United Kingdom companies involved in the production of those aircraft.
With regard to the hon. Gentleman's last point about the maritime aircraft replacement, I can assure him that the DTI will continue to work closely with the Ministry of Defence to make absolutely certain that the commercial and industrial interests are not overlooked in any decision that may be made.

Sir John Cope: My right hon. Friend will be aware that I also welcome the FLA announcement that was made before Christmas. Will he lose no opportunity to emphasise, both within Government and wider, that the tremendous success of Airbus last year in outselling Boeing both reinforces the case that it can deliver on the future large aircraft and emphasises the great importance to the United Kingdom aerospace industry of participation in the project and hence in the future success of Airbus?

Mr. Eggar: It was an extremely important decision for the British and European aerospace industries. Airbus had a very good year last year: for the first time it outsold Boeing, selling 125 aircraft to Boeing's 120. I hope that that considerable achievement will continue into 1995.

Beer Orders>

Mr. Wareing: To ask the President of the Board of Trade what plans he has to make changes to the beer orders following the planned changes in the management of the Grand Metropolitan estate.

Mr. Jonathan Evans: I assume that the hon. Gentleman has in mind the recent decision announced by Grand Metropolitan to withdraw from the direct management of Inntrepreneur Estates Ltd. These changes have no effect or bearing on the beer orders. I therefore have no plans to make any changes to those orders.

Mr. Wareing: Is it not time that the DTI carried out a thorough inquiry into the pub activities of Grand Metropolitan through Inntrepreneur Estates, in which Grand Metropolitan still owns a share? Is the Minister aware that last year 10 per cent. of Inntrepreneur tenants were driven out of business because of the chronic over-renting of premises and other aggressive policies pursued by Lord Shepherd and Grand Metropolitan? Is he aware that most Inntrepreneur tenants now regard Lord Shepherd and Grand Metropolitan as the Rachman of today's pub trade? It is alleged that there have been 14 suicides among tenants of the organisation.

Mr. Evans: I am aware that my predecessor met the hon. Gentleman last year, together with representatives of the tenants. I am also aware that a delegation led, I believe, by my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test (Mr. Hill), had a meeting with my predecessor. It was made clear at that time that the Department is perfectly happy to investigate—and will arrange for the Director General of Fair Trading to investigate—any allegation of a breach of the beer orders, or any breach of undertakings given by IEL at the time of the takeover.
Such matters as have come to the Department's attention since then have been investigated. I am bound to say, however, that given the strength of the remarks made by the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Wareing), I rather hoped that he would be more forthcoming. The Department could not be asked to do more than make that offer to the hon. Gentleman, if there are specific allegations of breaches of the beer orders or of undertakings made by IEL.

Mr. Couchman: The House will know that until recently I ran a family company operating public houses in London. I wish to dissociate myself from the remarks of the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Wareing). I have now disposed of my interest in that company, apart from remaining a non-executive director for a brief period.
It is now five years since the flawed report by the Monopolies and Mergers Commission, "The Supply of Beer", was published and the beer orders were passed by the House. May I urge my hon. Friend to get his Department to review the operation of those orders? The British pub remains in severe jeopardy as a result of many factors, not simply the orders themselves.

Mr. Evans: As I told the hon. Member for West Derby, my Department is certainly prepared to investigate any specific allegations that are made. If my hon. Friend has any such allegations to put before the Department, they will be examined.

Exports

Sir Michael Neubert: To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is the level of exports by price and volume for the last 12 months; and what were the figures for the previous 12 months.

Mr. Needham: In the third quarter of 1994, underlying exports rose by 14 per cent. in volume and by 15 per cent. in value.

Sir Michael Neubert: Is not the present buoyancy of our overseas trade as good a piece of news as we have had for many a year, and is not the export-led recovery that we are now experiencing the best possible augury for sustained prosperity for this country for years ahead?

Mr. Needham: My hon. Friend is right. At a time when Opposition Members and many in the press were forecasting an increase in our deficit, that deficit is declining. Let me tell the hon. Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy), who asked a question earlier, that since 1981 the volume of United Kingdom-manufactured exports has grown faster than that of the exports of France, Germany or Japan; our world trade in manufactures has stabilised; last year we increased our share of the export markets, and we are likely to continue to do so this year. The deficit in manufactures is declining, and there could not possibly be better news for the country.

Mr. O'Hara: It is indeed many a year since we heard such good news. I notice that the Minister took 1981, not 1979, as his base date. Does he recognise, however, that an important reason for our improved export performance—particularly to our major markets in Europe—is the swifter recovery in consumer spending in Europe? What measures can he announce today to ensure that, when consumer spending eventually recovers in this country, domestic manufacturing capacity will be expanded to meet the ensuing demand for consumer goods?

Mr. Needham: The best way to expand domestic demand is on the back of an export-led boom. The hon. Gentleman always claims that I start from 1981, not 1979, so just to please him I shall start from 1979. Between 1977 and 1979, when the hon. Gentleman's party was in power, the surplus on manufacturing declined by 3 percentage points of GDP. Had the Opposition continued in power with that sort of record, we would now have a minus figure of 16 per cent.—and getting worse—instead of a figure of minus one, and getting better.

Inward Investment

Dr. Spink: To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is his latest estimate of the proportion of total European inward investment which is captured by the United Kingdom.

Mr. Heseltine: In 1993 the UK had 41 per cent. by value of the stock of Japanese investment in the EC and 43 per cent. by value of the stock of United States investment in the EC. Comparable stock figures are not readily available from other countries outside the EC.

Dr. Spink: Can my right hon. Friend confirm that this superb inward investment performance greatly contributes to our economic success at the moment? Can he confirm


that inward investment would be threatened if we followed the policies espoused by the Opposition parties—policies such as a minimum wage and the adoption of the social chapter? Would they not destroy inward investment, and with it our economic success and millions of jobs in this country?

Mr. Heseltine: My hon. Friend is right. That is why we are determined to fight for the British interest: to ensure that the excesses of the social chapter are never applied here.

Mr. Clelland: Does the Secretary of State recall, during the debates on privatisation, that Opposition Members were repeatedly told that inward investment opportunities from Europe and elsewhere would be enhanced by the regionally based nature of the privatised electricity companies? Indeed, the White Paper went to some lengths to spell out the advantages of such companies. Notwithstanding what the right hon. Gentleman has said today about the complications of the takeover bid for Northern Electric by Trafalgar, do the Government still believe in the principle of regionally based electricity companies—yes or no?

Mr. Heseltine: Yes.

Mr. Colvin: Does my right hon. Friend agree that during today's exchanges we have heard many reasons for the improved inward investment to the United Kingdom as a share of the total in Europe; but should we not add to those the fact that we have a stable Government with a fundamental belief in free enterprise, a highly skilled work force which is far more mobile than it used to be because of our housing reforms, the best industrial relations record in Europe, and we are members of the European Union without the social chapter? Does he agree that all those advantages could be put at risk if the alternative Government sitting opposite us were elected?

Mr. Heseltine: I quarrel only with my hon. Friend's use of one word. There is no credible alternative Government on the Opposition Benches.

Post Office

Mr. Barnes: To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is his Department's policy on allowing commercial freedoms to the Post Office; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Heseltine: The Post Office operates several businesses. We are actively engaged in widening the opportunities for Post Office Counters and are helping to automate its services.
We will announce any plans to change the present arrangements governing the remainder of Post Office activities in due course.

Mr. Barnes: The Government are still in favour of Post Office privatisation even though they have been forced by some of their Back Benchers and by the Opposition to drop it. Will they now consider the position of the Union of Communication Workers, which is against privatisation but for commercial freedom operating fully within the public sector? Will the Government bear that in mind as an alternative to any proposals that they may want to introduce at a later stage?

Mr. Heseltine: The hon. Gentleman obviously does not even realise that 19,000 of the 20,000 post offices are already privately owned.

Mr. Dykes: May I thank my right hon. Friend for kindly responding to the suggestions that my colleagues and I put to him at a meeting before Christmas about the future of the Post Office? Will he confirm that decisions should be made sooner rather than later to remove uncertainties, which do not help the management or the work force? Importantly, as option I was specifically mentioned as one of the possibilities or probable policies in the Green Paper, we should proceed with the component of full commercial freedom for a very successful corporation.

Mr. Heseltine: My hon. Friend will understand the inherent difficulties in equating full commercial freedom with public ownership.

Mr. Wilson: As that answer suggests, is the Secretary of State still sulking in his tent and refusing to accept the defeat which was inflicted upon him not only by hon. Members on both sides of the House but, above all, by the British public? Instead of a grudging response, will he agree, before he gives evidence to the Select Committee on Trade and Industry at the end of the month, to come forward with some positive and creative proposals that will find support throughout the House and the country for giving the Post Office greater commercial freedom within the public sector, which it wants and deserves?

Mr. Heseltine: It is very easy for the hon. Gentleman to make wild suggestions. When the Labour party was in power, it never occurred to it to do any such things. In fact, the Labour Government did exactly the opposite and held back Royal Mail and Post Office investment, as they did in the rest of the public sector. It is nothing but the most trivial political hypocrisy for the Labour party, which slaughtered the capital investment programmes of the nationalised industries using the excuse of proper management of the national economy, to suggest that when it is in Opposition it is possible to change the disciplines that we are discussing.

Points of Order

Mr. George Foulkes: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. You were clairvoyant earlier when I wanted to ask a question. I know that you are diligent in drawing hon. Members to order when questions do not relate to ministerial responsibility. Will you read the supplementary questions of Conservative Members to the Prime Minister yesterday, some of which did not relate directly to the responsibility of Ministers? Would you make it clear to Conservative Members and Ministers that if they want an opportunity to question the policies of the Labour party, the Liberals or any other party, there is a simple way of doing so, and that is to have a general election?

Madam Speaker: Not for the first time do I draw to the attention of the House the fact that our system operates on the basis that it is the Government who are responsible to the people through the House for their policies, the implementation of them and the effect that they have. It is never more apparent than at Question Time that the House should seek to question the Government on their policies. That is what Question Time is all about. I remind all Back-Bench Members of that, and those who occupy the Front Benches. It is those on the Government Front Bench who are responsible for the policies that they implement. They are answerable for those policies, and never more than at Question Time.

Mr. John McFall: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I wonder whether you have had a demand for a statement from the Home Secretary on a Cabinet Committee document, a copy of which I have in my possession, which sets out how the Government will

deal with the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board's scheme following the Court of Appeal ruling of 9 November 1994 that the scheme was illegal. The document suggests that the tariff scheme is being introduced because it will save up to £100 million a year. The Government intend to proceed by way of enabling legislation, thereby avoiding detailed parliamentary scrutiny.
I hope that you agree, Madam Speaker, that that is not the way to drive legislation through Parliament. What advice do you have for me for the sake of many thousands of victims who will lose financially as a result of the Government's intentions? Surely Parliament should be given the opportunity to debate the Cabinet Committee document as soon as possible.

Madam Speaker: That hardly seems to be a point of order for me. I cannot comment on a leaked document—I understand the hon. Gentleman to say that that is what it is. I have received no request for a Minister to make a statement. The hon. Gentleman must find other ways to pursue the matter.

BILL PRESENTED

ENERGY SAVING MATERIALS (RATE OF VALUE ADDED TAX)

Mr. Alan Simpson, supported by Mrs. Diana Maddock, Mrs. Alice Mahon, Sir John Hannam, Mr. Cynog Dafis, Mr. John McAllion, Mr. Terry Rooney, Mr. Peter Bottomley, Mr. David Rendel, Mr. Gary Waller, Mr. Michael Clapham and Mr. Harry Barnes presented a Bill to limit the amount of value added tax payable on certain energy-saving materials; to require the Secretary of State to compile a definitive list of such materials; and for related purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 20 January and to be printed. [Bill 31.]

Media (Diversity)

Mr. Chris Mullin: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to regulate the ownership of the media.
My Bill will reverse the growing trend towards monopoly ownership of most of what we see on our television screens and read in our newspapers. The purpose of the Bill is to protect our culture and democracy from the barbarism of the unregulated market. I hope that it will appeal to democrats of all political persuasions. I am glad to say that it has attracted support from hon. Members on both sides of the House.
Although our television has always been carefully regulated, it has long been the situation that many of our national and regional newspapers are controlled by unscrupulous megalomaniacs. Now, the same people are taking control of our television. Rupert Murdoch, who owns five national newspapers, also has what is effectively a controlling interest in satellite television, which, we are told, will he in one home in two by the end of the century. Michael Green, of Carlton, has acquired Central Television, and with it a 36 per cent. stake in Independent Television News and a similar stake in Independent Radio News. Granada Television, headed by a ruthless profiteer, Mr. Gerry Robinson, has acquired London Weekend Television and with it a 36 per cent. stake in ITN, all in defiance of section 32 of the Broadcasting Act 1990, which says that no shareholding in ITN may exceed 20 per cent., precisely with a view to preserving its independence.
Every day, the frontiers that regulate the independence and quality of our television are pushed back a little further. The Government are under enormous pressure to remove what restrictions remain and to let the market rip. And not only the Government. Seeing the possibility of a Labour victory at the next election, a massive bout of free-lunching has been unleashed by the vested interests concerned, and its purpose is to persuade my right hon. and hon. Friends charged with responsibility in these matters that big is beautiful, that the triumph of the market is inevitable and that it will not diminish the quality of the product. One of the purposes of the Bill is to stiffen the resolve of my hon. Friends.
The rise of Messrs. Murdoch, Green, Robinson and others has already led to a marked decline in standards. Documentaries such as "This Week" have disappeared. "World in Action", one of the last refuges for inquiring journalism, has been under heavy pressure. Even ITN's "News at Ten" is not safe as the new masters press for its removal to a more obscure slot, to make way for an unending diet of bland American movies. Already there has been an obvious decline in quality at ITN, a reluctance to invest in foreign reporting, and an increasing tendency to conduct long and pointless live interviews between an anchorman in Grays Inn road and a correspondent rarely more than two or three miles away. The other day on ITN there was a lengthy item on Kermit the frog.
There is talk of new technology bringing in 20, 30 or 40 channels. It is said that we will have more choice, but in fact we will have less. We are headed down the American road—40 channels with nothing worth watching on any of them and our culture colonised by American junk television. Our domestic television

production capacity will be wiped out, just as our film industry has been. Indeed, it is already happening. 'The industry is being remorselessly casualised. Since the Broadcasting Act, the number of full-time jobs in commercial television has halved. Who will provide the training for future generations of television film makers when the present generation is gone? Or are the new masters just intending to poach from the BBC?
What I fear most is not political bias, but the steady growth of junk journalism—the trivialisation and demeaning of everything that is important in our lives, and its consequent effect on our culture, a flat refusal to address what is going on in the world in favour of an endless diet of crime, game shows and soap operas, and the unadulterated hate that is already a feature of our most loathsome tabloid newspapers. In the long run, there is a danger—I put it no higher—that, with an increasing concentration of ownership and progressive abandonment of standards, television will become fertile ground for demagogues, offering simple solutions to complex problems. One has only to look at the rise of the religious right in America, or to Italy—governed until recently by a man who owns three major television stations—for a clue as to where the future may lie.
My Bill has three principal purposes. First, it seeks to enforce diversity of newspaper and television ownership in the belief that healthy competition rather than monopoly is the best way to ensure the survival of our democracy.
Secondly, the Bill seeks to provide for a minimum level of quality in the firm belief that that is the best way to protect our television from the rise of junk culture.
Thirdly, the Bill seeks to create a level playing field between commercial and satellite television. At the moment satellite television is exempt from many of the regulations that apply to terrestrial television.
I shall list some of the specific measures contained in the Bill. First, there is a requirement that no national newspaper proprietor shall be permitted to own more than one daily or one Sunday newspaper. Surplus assets must be placed on the market within 12 months of the Bill being enacted.
Secondly, no one who is not a citizen of the European Community shall in future be permitted to own more than 20 per cent. of any company owning British national or regional newspapers or British terrestrial or satellite television. That provision is based on similar regulations that already apply in the United States.
Thirdly, no company which has a controlling interest in a British national newspaper shall be permitted to own a stake of more than 20 per cent. in a British television company, terrestrial or satellite.
Fourthly, no company that has a controlling interest in either terrestrial or satellite television broadcasting to the United Kingdom shall be permitted to own more than 20 per cent. of a British national newspaper.
Fifthly, a given percentage of the output of any television company, satellite or terrestrial, broadcasting to the United Kingdom, shall be produced within the EC. That will extend to satellite television a provision which is already enforced on terrestrial stations.
Sixthly, no company shall be permitted to own more than 20 per cent. of ITN, IRN or any other national broadcast news service and any surplus should be disposed of within 12 months of the Act coming into force.
Seventhly, no company with a controlling interest in any local television or radio station or in any local newspaper shall be permitted to own more than 20 per cent. of any other media outlet covering the same catchment area.
Eighthly, no company shall be allowed to own more than 20 per cent. of the encryption system for satellite television and any surplus shall be placed on the market within 12 months. Hon. Members will be aware that at present Mr. Murdoch has a monopoly of the encryption system which prevents anyone else gaining access to the satellite market.
Ninthly, substantial regional commercial television production facilities must be maintained in at least the six largest population centres outside London.
Tenthly, a training levy will be imposed on any television company employing more than 100 people which does not spend a given percentage of its income on training.
Those measures should appeal to civilised people of all political persuasions. They are, as I have said, designed to protect our democracy and culture from the barbarism of the unregulated market. In many respects they merely enshrine or build upon regulations that already exist. Overall they will have the effect of introducing competition into areas where fair competition is being progressively stifled or eliminated.
We should not be afraid of regulation. Our broadcasting system has been carefully regulated throughout its existence and, as a result, it is widely admired around the world. I am anxious that it should remain so and that is the purpose of the Bill. I commend it to the House.

Mr. Michael Fabricant (Mid-Staffordshire): There we have it. Behind the Colgate ring-of-confidence smile of the Leader of the Opposition we have the authentic voice of socialism on his Back Benches. The hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) uses the words "barbarism of the market" and "ruthless profiteer", but nowhere in the Bill does he acknowledge the existence of new technologies and the way in which the market operates in the United Kingdom and the world in general.
I oppose the Bill on two grounds. First, as I say, it does not acknowledge changes in technology and, secondly, the unilateral changes that the hon. Gentleman would like to see in the United Kingdom would put us at a great disadvantage compared with the rest of Europe and the world.
I quote two authoritative people. The right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman), Chairman of the Select Committee on National Heritage on which I have the honour to serve, said:
Of course there are dangers in monopolistic cross-media ownership, but at the same time in my view without cross-media ownership there is no commercial viability in the new environment.
The right hon. Gentleman is right and the hon. Member for Sunderland, South is wrong.
Here is another quotation:
Traditional distinctions between printed press and broadcasting channels will be difficult to sustain when all forms of media use the same cable to deliver their output electronically. In those circumstances it may no longer be sensible to maintain restrictions on cross-media ownership in their present form.
That is an argument for less legislation, not more. Did it come from the Conservative party manifesto? No. Was it written by a Conservative Member? No. It came from a document called "Winning for Britain" published in June last year by the Labour party. Funnily enough, the Labour party got it right and the hon. Member for Sunderland, South got it wrong.
I believe in firm governance tempered by economic freedom and political and economic reality. If the Bill were ever to become law it would open the door for the Berlusconis and the Bertelsmans of this world. When the hon. Gentleman so traditionally attacks Rupert Murdoch he should remember that although News International, a United Kingdom-based company, has interests in The Sun, The Times and 50 per cent. of BSkyB, the Guardian Media Group owns The Guardian, The Observer, 36 local weeklies, 15 per cent. of GMTV and 20 per cent. of Trans World Communications.
I could tell the hon. Gentleman similar facts about Pearson, the Daily Mail and General Trust, and Reed Elsevier. However, I would rather have all those groups operating successfully than allow Berlusconi and Bertelsman to dominate the media in the United Kingdom, the rest of Europe and the rest of the world. For those reasons, I oppose the motion.

Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 19 (Motions for leave to bring in Bills and nomination of Select Committees at commencement of public business), and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Chris Mullin, Mrs. Ann Clwyd, Mr. Cyril D. Townsend, Mrs. Margaret Ewing, Mr. Denis MacShane, Mr. Richard Shepherd, Dr. Tony Wright, Mr. Hugh Dykes, Ms Jean Corston, Sir Richard Body, Mr. Dafydd Wigley and Mr. Andrew F. Bennett.

MEDIA (DIVERSITY)

Mr. Chris Mullin accordingly presented a Bill to regulate the ownership of the media: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 10 February and to be printed. [Bill 30.]

Orders of the Day — Committee of Selection

Madam Speaker: I inform the House that I have selected the amendment standing in the name of the Leader of the Opposition.

Mr. Max Madden: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. The Government's motion uses the term "party" three times. It says not "the Conservative party" but simply "party". In the ensuing debate we shall hear many references to the Conservative party and to political parties in general, so I should like your advice, Madam Speaker, on how that term is to be defined.
The Conservative party as such seems to be non-existent. It has no definition in relation to the House and the 1922 Committee, which seems to be the umbrella organisation, has no standing orders. The Conservative party itself is not incorporated and does not publish an annual report and accounts. Indeed, it seems to be a wholly owned subsidiary of the Prime Minister, without accountability to anyone.

Madam Speaker: That is all very interesting, but it seems to me that it is a matter for debate if the hon. Gentleman were to catch my eye. I am wondering what the point of order for me is at this stage.

Mr. Madden: The point of order is that the debate hinges on the central issue of majorities on Committees. I cannot understand how that debate can be conducted in an informed way if none of us is aware of how the Conservative party or Conservative Members of Parliament are defined. There is no such thing as a Conservative party.

Madam Speaker: Order. I have been enormously tolerant. This is all very interesting. I am sure that the House will be most interested to hear the hon. Gentleman's views on the matter, but they cannot be expressed on a point of order. I cannot say that I am willing to call the hon. Gentleman because I shall have many people to call, if I ever have a chance to get the motion under way. If the hon. Gentleman will come to his point of order, I might be able to answer it. Otherwise, perhaps he will save his remarks for the debate so that we can all enjoy them.

Mr. Madden: I ask you to consider whether the motion is in order, as the motion refers only to "party".

Madam Speaker: That is a very simple point of order. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the motion would not be printed on the Order Paper unless it had been thoroughly examined not only by me but by several other people. It has been considered by learned Clerks of the

House, but most importantly by me. It would not have appeared on the Order Paper unless it was perfectly in order for debate today.

Mr. Toby Jessel: rose—

Madam Speaker: It cannot be another point of order.

Mr. Jessel: It is further to that same point of order.

Madam Speaker: No. I will not allow that. I call the Leader of the House to move the perfectly in order motion.

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Tony Newton): I beg to move,
That, unless and until the party which achieved an overall majority of Members elected at the preceding general election loses that majority either as a result of by-elections or through the secession of Members to another party, the Committee of Selection shall interpret paragraph (2) of Standing Order No. 86 (Nomination of standing committees) in such a way as to give that party a majority on any standing committee.
I need only briefly describe the background, which I believe is familiar to the House. Under Standing Order No. 86, Standing Committees of the House are appointed by the Committee of Selection, which is enjoined to have regard, among other things, to the composition of the House.
In the ordinary course of events, even though the meaning of the phrase is nowhere more clearly defined, its intention has been clearly understood to be to ensure that the Committees reflect party proportions in the House and, therefore, to give a Government with an overall majority in the House a majority on the Standing Committees which consider legislation. Such difficulty as has occurred, with the principal exception perhaps of an occasion in 1976 to which I shall return in a moment, has normally been in applying the somewhat arcane mathematical formulae with which the concept is given practical effect, which has led at times to disagreement about the precise size of majorities on particular Committees.

Mr. Madden: The Leader of the House will admit that in the real world the Committee of Selection is told whom to select for Committees by the respective party Whips. Therefore, the prospect of the nine Conservative Members who have had the Whip withdrawn being selected to serve on any Standing Committees is remote to say the least. May I put to the Leader of the House the question that I put to Madam Speaker: how does he define the Conservative party in the House? The Whip has been withdrawn from nine individuals who happen to have been elected to the House in the Conservative cause. They do not belong to any organisation comparable to the parliamentary Labour party. The PLP has standing orders. The 1922 Committee does not. How does he define the Conservative party? Are Members who are known as Conservative Members part of any recognisable party structure or organisation in the House?

Mr. Newton: It is certainly the case that the 1922 Committee, rather like the British constitution, is based largely on an unwritten constitution. As to whether the


Conservative party can be recognised, I can recognise it when I see it, and there are more of us than there are of them and we are sitting over here.

Mr. Robert Hughes: How does the Leader of the House answer the charge made on the radio at lunchtime today by the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Thames (Mr. Lamont) that the motion on the Order Paper today is fiddling with the constitution?

Mr. Newton: For reasons that I hope to explain in a moment, I do not accept that view. As it happens, I did not hear my right hon. Friend on the radio at lunchtime. He may seek to catch your eye, Madam Speaker, and elaborate his point during the debate.
I was explaining that in general, although not exclusively, the main difficulties for the Committee of Selection have arisen from determining the size of majorities, rather than from identifying who is to have a majority. In the circumstances that have arisen in recent weeks, following the action taken by my right hon. Friend the Chief Whip in respect of eight of my hon. Friends and the consequent action by another of my hon. Friends on his own, there has been a strong divergence of view about what the phrase "the composition of the House" is to be taken to mean. We therefore thought it right for that dispute to be resolved on the Floor of the House, rather than leaving the Committee of Selection and its diligent Chairman, my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale (Sir F. Montgomery), in continuing difficulties in fulfilling their duties week by week.
The purpose of my motion is to resolve the matter and to do so in a way that would establish a firmer basis for dealing with any comparable difficulty in the future.

Sir Teddy Taylor: Can the Leader of the House assure us that, in promoting this motion, the Government intend that all Members of Parliament elected as Conservatives at the last election, irrespective of their present relationship with the party, will receive equal treatment by the Committee of Selection in the consideration of their qualifications for Committee membership? In other words, will there be no veto?

Mr. Newton: I can certainly give my hon. Friend the assurance that there will be no veto. He will know that, unlike the hon. Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden), we regard the selection of Committees as a matter for the Committee of Selection. I am glad to see my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale nodding. Subject to that caveat, we would not wish to, nor would we seek to, exclude from consideration my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) or the other hon. Members concerned.

Mr. Archy Kirkwood: I am grateful to the Leader of the House for giving way as this matter is very important. We may be in danger of disfranchising the nine Members of Parliament about whom we are talking. As a member of the Committee of Selection it is well known to me, and I am sure to the right hon. Gentleman, too, that I am responsible for nominating all other Members, other than those who are part of the Conservative party or the official Opposition. As a result of what he just said, am I to be expected to make recommendations for Standing Committee



membership on behalf of those nine Members of Parliament, or will the Government officially put forward their names for inclusion in the membership of any Standing Committees that we may create?

Mr. Newton: I think that I made the position clear. On the hon. Gentleman's first question, the position is absolutely clear. No, we certainly do not expect him to take responsibility for nominating the Members of Parliament in question for selection for Standing Committees. I have made it absolutely clear—I shall repeat the words—that we would not wish to, nor would we seek to, exclude those Members from consideration as Conservative members of the Standing Committees—there would be no veto.

Sir Fergus Montgomery: Perhaps my right hon. Friend could emphasise the fact that two of our hon. Friends who do not take the Whip serve on Select Committees and the Committee of Selection has made no attempt to remove them.

Mr. Kirkwood: That is not relevant.

Sir Fergus Montgomery: With great respect, I think that it has a bearing on this. We could have tried to remove them, but we made no attempt to do so and we accept them as members.

Mr. Newton: That is absolutely right and I stress that point. Three of my hon. Friends in the position at issue in this debate are members of Select Committees.[Interruption.] My hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale raised the matter. Perhaps I might be allowed to acknowledge and agree with what he said. There is no intention of trying to remove those Members from Select Committees.

Mr. Nicholas Budgen: I am sure that my right hon. Friend will agree that the problem does not arise with Select Committees because, by custom, a member of a Select Committee cannot be removed from it simply because he happens to disagree with the Government generally or on a specific matter. The problem does arise in respect of Standing Committees, however. Is it not the case that, as far as the Conservative party is concerned, most Members write to the Chairman of the Committee of Selection saying that they want to be considered for a Committee? The Whips Office also makes recommendations. There are a number of ways in which people can show their interest in a Committee. Even if we are not part of the official party for some temporary reason, it does not stop us writing to the Chairman of the Committee of Selection.

Mr. Newton: I agree with every single word that my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen) has just uttered.

Sir Terence Higgins: My hon. Friend the Chairman of the Committee of Selection may have had a slip of the tongue when he referred to Select rather than Standing Committees. Will my right hon. Friend make it absolutely clear that there is no question of the Committee of Selection seeking to remove people from Select Committees? They are appointed for a Parliament and can be removed only by a motion on the Floor of the House.

Mr. Newton: Of course that is right. Select Committee membership is determined by a motion that must be


passed by the House. To avoid any doubt, there would be and is no question of seeking to remove any of the hon. Members in question from Select Committees.

Mrs. Ann Taylor: Will the Leader of the House clarify some of the terminology that has been used so far in the debate? The hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale (Sir F. Montgomery) referred to his colleagues who "do not take the Whip". That is not the correct terminology. It is a question not of not taking the Whip but of the Whip being withdrawn. In view of the statement which the Leader of the House was making about appointments to Standing Committees, will he say exactly what is meant by "withdrawal of the Conservative Whip"?

Mr. Newton: It is not for me to describe on the Floor of the House the internal arrangements of this party or any other. My purpose in tabling the motion and making a speech—I am making it with some difficulty in view of the number of interventions—is to explain what I believe is appropriate to the procedures and Standing Orders of the House, and their interpretation.

Mr. Don Dixon: Given that the Leader of the House said that the hon. Members in question will not be debarred from Standing Committees—incidentally, Standing Committees are all that we are discussing today, and all that is referred to in paragraph (2) of Standing Order No. 86, the motion and the amendments to it—will he explain what happened when the hon. Member for Torbay (Mr. Allason) had the Whip withdrawn? When he approached the Whips Office to get on a Standing Committee, he was directed to the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) to see whether he could get the position of another member of the Standing Committee.

Mr. Newton: My hon. Friend the Treasurer of Her Majesty's Household, who occupies the position opposite to the hon. Member for Jarrow (Mr. Dixon), assures me that that was not the case. In any event, it is not the case in the present issue.

Mr. Christopher Gill: As one of the two hon. Members specifically referred to—I am a member of the Select Committee on Agriculture—will the Leader of the House be kind enough to give me one good reason why I should vote for this motion, given that the Government could prolong my punishment indefinitely if they win the vote?

Mr. Newton: I hope to give my hon. Friend a number of reasons why he should vote for the motion. On the latter part of his question, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and others, including some of my hon. Friends who are in a similar position to my hon. Friend, have made it clear that we all wish to see the matter resolved as speedily as possible.

Mr. Norman Lamont: Is not the question put by the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) the most central one? Is not the withdrawal of the Whip from an hon. Member, or its resignation by an hon. Member, tantamount to his losing membership of the parliamentary party? As that hon. Member's membership of the parliamentary party has then stopped, either temporarily or permanently, have not the Government put

themselves in a minority? Are not they therefore denying the logic of the position which they have, for whatever reason, decided to take?

Mr. Newton: I do not think that they have, for the reasons that I shall give in a moment. In effect, they will entail the House making a judgment about whether it wishes to enshrine the position of the Whips in the formal procedures and Standing Orders of the House in a way that has never hitherto been done.

Mr. Geoffrey Hoon: The motion tabled by the Leader of the House refers to the
secession of Members to another party".
Can the right hon. Gentleman explain what will happen in a situation where a Member chooses to sit as an independent?

Mr. Newton: He would be a party of one in the same way as the hon. Member for North Down (Sir J. Kilfedder) sits as a party of one representing the Ulster Popular Unionist party.

Mr. Gill: If the Leader of the House and other right hon. Gentlemen wish the Whip to be restored to me and the other seven who have had it withdrawn, would he be kind enough to tell me why they do not do just that rather than seek approval for the motion? The answer is self-evidently in their own hands.

Mr. Newton: I hope that with the best will in the world—I mean that; I am not just using words—my hon. Friend would not expect me now to go beyond what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said in his widely publicised interview on Sunday or to attempt to resolve the matter at this moment. The motion is meant to deal with the particular difficulty that we face and I hope that I may now be allowed to get on to put my argument.

Mr. Budgen: I listened carefully to what my right hon. Friend said about the position of a Member who describes himself as independent. That might be the position of my hon. Friend the Member for Holland with Boston (Sir R. Body), who resigned the Whip. We, the remaining eight, are in a different position. We say that we are Tories and indeed the Prime Minister described us as being more blue than many of the Tories—it is only the Government who do not describe us as Tories. On the other hand, my hon. Friend the Member for Holland with Boston may be in the position of being an independent. Perhaps my right hon. Friend can explain whether there is a distinction between the eight and the one.

Mr. Newton: It would depend on whether my hon. Friend the Member for Holland with Boston (Sir R. Body) declared that there was a difference in the position, which amounted to him viewing himself as a party of one or as an independent in the terms to which I have already referred. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West for what he just said about


his own position and that of most, at least, of the others concerned. I am also grateful to him for his article in The Guardian yesterday.

Sir John Gorst: Surely the situation is this: if one has the Whip withdrawn, one has one's knuckles rapped; if one has been expelled from the party, one has had one's hands cut off. That is permanent.

Mr. Newton: I take my hon. Friend's point. One thing is absolutely clear—the withdrawal of the Conservative Whip does not constitute expulsion from the Conservative party.

Mr. Ray Powell: Will the Leader of the House clearly define at this stage what interpretation he would offer of the nine Members who are no longer members of the parliamentary Conservative party in the House—the eight who were suspended and the one who resigned? One might suggest that the Member who resigned would automatically lose his position, but the eight who have been suspended have been subjected to a particular debate. It is for the Leader of the House to decide into what category those eight Members should be put, because the Committee of Selection, of which I am a member, is having great difficulty deciding how we can appoint people to Committees until such time as the House has decided the issue.
In the early part of December, in reply to the shadow Leader of the House, my hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor), the right hon. Gentleman said that it should be up to the Committee of Selection to make the decision and that it was not a matter for him. The Committee of Selection has failed to reach agreement, hence today's debate on the Floor of the House. Can he explain in what category he believes that those eight Members should be put in the formidable list presented to the Committee of Selection when we determine the numerical strength on each Committee?

Mr. Newton: Surely I have made it clear, in response to a number of interventions by my hon. Friends, that, for this purpose, the Members in question would be regarded as Conservative Members of Parliament.

Mr. Nigel Spearing: The Leader of the House said that the internal workings of the Government party have nothing to do with the motion before us. How can that be so? In so far as the eight Members are concerned, it is a result of an internal matter in the party concerned. All that the motion does is to pretend that that never happened, for the purposes of the Standing Committee and the Committee of Selection. Is not it using the authority of the House to back up the internal authority that has failed inside the Conservative party?

Mr. Newton: No. The purpose of the motion is almost exactly the opposite, but, as a result of the number of interventions—about which I make no complaint—I have not been able to make the principal argument that I wish to make to the House.

Mr. Tony Marlow: I regret that. My right hon. Friend is being very tolerant indeed.
The motion has long-term implications, which we will reach eventually, and short-term implications. Will my right hon. Friend say, categorically, that, as far as he and

the Government are concerned, those of us who do not have the Whip at the moment will be treated in exactly the same way for the purposes of Standing Committee selection as those colleagues who currently have the Whip—yes or no?

Mr. Newton: I think that I made it clear that—although it is a matter for the Committee of Selection—we would expect the Committee of Selection to consider those Members in the same way as other Members, and we would neither wish nor seek to exclude them from such consideration, or to veto them.

Mr. Marlow: rose—

Mr. Lamont: rose—

Sir Andrew Bowden: rose—

Mr. Newton: I will give way first to my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow).

Mr. Marlow: We all know that the usual channels have a great deal of influence on these events. My right hon. Friend is a bit shy about it, but we know that that is the case. Does he agree that colleagues such as myself who do not have the Whip will be treated, as far as the Government and the usual channels are concerned, in an identical way to other colleagues?

Mr. Newton: I think that I have made that clear to my hon. Friend. The best description of the situation was that given by my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West. The arrangements on the Conservative side of the House have historically been different from the more rigid approach adopted on the Labour side of the House, as I understand it. It is the traditional practice that, on the Conservative side of the House, Members have usually written themselves to the Committee of Selection, and their opinions and wishes are taken into account, together with any thoughts coming from other quarters. That position will continue. I hope that I have said clearly several times that we would neither wish nor seek to exclude those Members from normal consideration by the Committee of Selection.

Sir Andrew Bowden: Will the Leader of the House spell out, loud and clear, that the Members about whom we are talking were elected as Conservative Members of Parliament and continue to be members of the Conservative party, and that that is being confused by an internal operation centring round the word "Whip"? They are Conservatives, they were elected Conservatives and, as long as they remain members of the Conservative party, they are part of the Conservative party strength in the House.

Mr. Newton: In a nutshell, I agree with that and it is the part of my speech that I am trying to reach.

Mr. Lamont: My right hon. Friend, in response to an intervention from an Opposition Member, said that if an hon. Member on the Conservative side of the House resigned the Whip—I am sorry to use that phrase again—but did not join another party, he would count none the less as an independent. My right hon. Friend appears to be drawing a distinction between someone resigning the Whip and having the Whip withdrawn from him, and I cannot see how that distinction can be made.

Mr. Newton: There is a possible distinction, but only in the hypothetical terms in which my hon. Friend the


Member for Wolverhampton, South-West couched it, in suggesting that there might be a difference in one Member's perception of his position. That leads me to one of the points that I want to make later in my speech. I also want to return to the issue raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Sir A. Bowden).

Mr. Bryan Davies: Some of us were under the impression that a grievous sin had been committed against the Conservative party by some hon. Members who voted in the wrong Lobby in the autumn, that condign punishment was being meted out to them and that they had to earn their passage back. As it is palpably the case that such hon. Members can vote in any Lobby they choose at the conclusion of any debate on the Floor of the House, and as the Government now seem to be portraying themselves as being solicitous of the interests of those Members should they wish to participate or vote in Committee, what is the nature of the punishment that such Members have received?

Mr. Newton: As I have already said, I do not propose to discuss on the Floor of the House the internal arrangements of the Conservative party any more than I would expect to discuss the internal arrangements of any other parties.

Mr. Budgen: Will my right hon. Friend give me a bit of guidance? We are told that one of the ways in which we may he able to crawl back on our knees into the party is by a display of abject loyalty. Obviously, we very much want to display those characteristics, but there is a practical difficulty. If we do not get the Whip, we do not know when the votes will come, we do not know when anything will he contested and, with the best will in the world, we cannot display the subservience required of us.

Mr. Madden: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. The debate so far reinforces the reservations that I and a number of others have about the motion. What is clear so far is that the hon. Member for Holland with Boston (Sir R. Body) has a fighting chance as an independent to claim Short opposition money to support his party. As long as they are not receiving the Conservative party Whip, the other eight Members have no chance in hell of serving on a Standing Committee. All in all, would it be helpful to you, Madam Speaker, the House and particularly the eight Members who have had the Whip withdrawn if I were to move to withdraw the motion to ease the difficulties facing the Leader of the House? We could return at a later stage when the Whip is restored to the nine Members.

Madam Speaker: It seems that the only difficulty—if difficulty it is—faced by the Leader of the House is that he is not being allowed to get on with his comments, which I am anxious to hear.

Mr. Newton: I shall respond briefly to my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West, whose intervention I took to be extremely friendly. I assure him that we shall be as helpful as we can in ensuring that he is fully informed about what is going on.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: On one occasion the Leader of the House said that there would be no veto, and on another he said that the rebels would be treated the same as everyone else. Is he seriously asking the House

and all of us to believe that neither he nor any of the Whips will pass judgment on an application by any of the nine rebels to serve on a European Standing Committee?

Mr. Newton: I have said what I have said several times and I do not propose to repeat it or seek to elaborate it further. The motion would establish a firmer basis for dealing with any comparable difficulty in future. Its purpose is to achieve that aim by stating that the composition of the House is to be regarded as determined by the electorate and the declared position of Members themselves, not by internal party arrangements within the House. Such arrangements are not recognised in our Standing Orders or procedures and are not normally discussed on the Floor of the House—although plainly that can hardly be avoided today.
The motion provides in a clear and straightforward manner that a party with a majority of Members elected at the preceding election shall retain a majority on Standing Committees unless and until it loses that majority, as a result either of seats changing hands at by-elections or Members seceding to another party. I believe that to be not only sensible but constitutionally right in recognising the relationship of Members to those who elect them. In the present House it would, of course, reflect the reality that, of its membership of 651, 330 were elected as Conservatives—which picks up the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Kemptown—and are members of the Conservative party who support Conservative principles and who have indicated their broad support for the Government's legislative programme set out in the Queen's Speech. Indeed—this echoes something to which my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West has referred already—as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said in his interview on Sunday, some would say that my hon. Friends whose position is at issue are very blue Conservatives indeed.
The hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) will no doubt address the Opposition amendment, my disagreement with which I have already made clear. Its very terms underline the important point at issue, since I think that it would be the first occasion on which an order or resolution of the House had enshrined the position of the Whips. I can only repeat that I do not believe that the composition of the House, for the purpose of our Standing Orders, should be determined by internal party arrangements within the House, but should be determined by the electorate and the declared position of Members of Parliament themselves.
In case the hon. Lady intends to refer to the events of May 1976 as some kind of precedent for her argument today, let me say that I think that exactly the opposite is true. In May 1976 the then Labour Government had lost their majority as a result of by-election defeats and the defection of a Labour Member to a party of his own. It was of course right in those very different circumstances that the Government should cease to have a majority on Standing Committees—as indeed, in similar circumstances, would happen under the terms of my motion today.
As it happens, in 1976 the Government argued initially that they should continue to have a majority on Standing Committees simply because they had a majority over the Conservatives rather than an overall majority in the House. That was plainly not acceptable in 1976. I suspect that there was much to-ing and


fro-ing through the usual channels and, between debating the proposition that there should be a majority regardless of the absence of an overall majority and 7 May, the dispute was resolved by a motion precisely along the lines that I propose today:
the Committee of Selection should interpret the Standing Order so that only an overall majority in the composition of the House should guarantee a majority in each Standing Committee".
Before I conclude, Madam Speaker, I hope that the hon. Lady—whatever else she may say in her speech—will explain the mystery of the apparent flat contradiction between the letter that the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) wrote last week to my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Sir M. Fox) and the motion on which his name appears today.
In his letter of last week, the hon. Member for Perry Barr referred to a Labour party standing order which said that, even if someone were suspended from the Whip, that Member is
expected to comply with the Party whip, and to conform with whatever pairing arrangements apply to other members of the Party from time to time".
The letter continued:
If the PLP at any time had Members who were suspended from the whip, it would still be quite legitimate for the Labour Party, in Parliament, to 'claim' those Members for the purposes of constructing Committees of the House".
He went on to say that unless the 1922 Committee had a similar rule—I am bound to say that it does not because, as I have said, its constitution is largely unwritten—there would be one rule for Labour party calculations in the House and another rule for Conservative calculations. Perhaps there is some simple misunderstanding—or perhaps wiser counsel has prevailed—but it would be helpful if the matter could be cleared up.
Whatever the explanation, however, the motion that I have moved represents the approach that is both sensible and right, and I commend it to the House.

Mrs. Ann Taylor: I beg to move, to leave out from "That" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
in the opinion of this House, any Member who for disciplinary reasons has been deprived of his or her party's whip has in effect been expelled from his or her Parliamentary party and cannot logically be counted as belonging to that party for the purposes of determining the current composition of the House; and accordingly this House instructs the Committee of Selection to apply this principle in nominating Members to serve on Standing Committees in accordance with Standing Order No. 86(2).".
Labour Members have certainly enjoyed the debate so far, although I am not sure how much light the Leader of the House has shed on the issue this afternoon. I am not sure that he has told the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen) how he should crawl back into subservience.
We are still intrigued to know exactly what is meant by withdrawing the Conservative Whip. If the roles were reversed and we were talking about Labour Members who had lost the Whip, it would be easy to define exactly what that meant, because the parliamentary Labour party has written rules and a constitution and we abide by them.
The Leader of the House said that he had tabled the motion because he thought that the House should decide. In fact, the decision to refer the matter to the Floor of the House was taken by the Committee of Selection; it was a unanimous all-party decision by that Committee, and that in itself demonstrates that the Committee of Selection considers that there is a problem, and that the new circumstances in which the House is working need to be examined and throw up new problems.
I start by reminding the House of the exact circumstances which have led to today's debate. It is not surprising that the Leader of the House did not spend a great deal of time on those circumstances, but it is worth reminding the House of the sequence of events.
On Monday 28 November last year, the House debated the Second Reading of the European Communities (Finance) Bill. The Prime Minister, because of fears about the scale of the Tory rebellion which was pending at that time, made that vote a vote of confidence in his Government. As it turned out, eight Conservative Members refused to support the Government on a vote of confidence and had the party Whip withdrawn. One hon. Member, the hon. Member for Holland with Boston (Sir R. Body), voluntarily resigned the Whip the next day. The motion moved by the Leader of the House leaves that hon. Gentleman in limbo, because its terms imply that hon. Members can move only to another party rather than have the independent status that he was implying could exist, but that is a minor point.
As a consequence of the decisions of that hon. Gentleman and the Conservative Whips, the number of members of the parliamentary Conservative party fell by nine. That meant that the number of Members receiving the Government Whip fell by nine and that the Government no longer enjoyed an overall majority in the House.
The figures were reported in the House of Commons Library bulletin of 2 December, which shows clearly that there are 321 Conservative Members and 269 Labour Members. There are two new categories: elected as a Conservative but has resigned the Whip, one; and elected as Conservatives but the Whip has been withdrawn, eight. Shortly after that, the position changed because after the Dudley by-election the number of Labour Members increased to 270. The change in the composition of the House following events on 28 November left the Committee of Selection having to decide what the ramifications of the new circumstances were and how it should interpret them in respect of new Standing Committees.
The Leader of the House has already mentioned that there have been other occasions on which Members on both sides of the House have had the Whip withdrawn. Indeed, there have been other occasions when Conservative Members have defied three-line Whips. When the European Communities Bill went through in 1972, the Government were defeated three times on three-line Whips because of defections on their own side, but in those circumstances no action was taken. It was somewhat unusual and unprecedented for so many Members of the Conservative party to have the Whip withdrawn on one occasion.
Now the Government have lost nine Members, which, given the relative narrowness of the Government's majority, has materially affected the balance of the House


of Commons. As the Leader of the House said, on such occasions we tend to look for precedents and he is right to say that there is no exact parallel.
As the right hon. Gentleman anticipated, I would argue that the nearest parallels are presented by events in 1951 and 1976, when Labour Governments were elected with small majorities which they lost during the ensuing Parliaments. It is interesting to note what Conservative Members said at those times. In 1951, for example, Mr. Winston Churchill, Mr. Anthony Eden, Mr. R. A. Butler and others tabled a motion when the Labour Government lost their majority, suggesting
That a Select Committee be appointed to consider
the relevant Standing Order
and report what alterations are necessary to elucidate its meaning and to ensure that Standing Committees in fact reflect the composition of the House.
As all hon. Members probably know, the outcome of that was a general election soon afterwards.
In 1976—the Leader of the House has already mentioned this—a Labour Government lost their majority on the Floor of the House. On 29 April 1976, the then Leader of the Opposition, Mrs. Thatcher, tabled early-day motion 351, which called on the Committee of Selection
henceforth to appoint Members in equal numbers from the Government and the Opposition Parties.
Incidentally, that motion was signed by the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West, who is not present at the moment. The position was debated on the Floor of the House, and it was agreed that only an overall majority in the composition of the House should guarantee a majority on each Standing Committee.

Mr. Edward Leigh: Did that historical position arise because Labour Members who formed part of the majority were denied the Whip? Surely not; this is a different situation.

Mrs. Taylor: The situation is the same, in that a governing party with a small majority has lost that majority.
As the Leader of the House has said, we still need to ask how we should define the composition of the House. That was the difficulty that faced the Committee of Selection when it met before Christmas. The peculiarity of our constitution is that it tends to ignore the existence of political parties whenever possible, which does not make the definition of the composition of the House any easier. The points made earlier by my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden) are extremely relevant in this context. Registration of political parties, which has been suggested by some Opposition Members, might help, but, for reasons that have already been mentioned, the idea has always been rejected by the Conservative party.
As we debate the motion we do not know exactly what is meant by withdrawal of the Whip, which makes life very difficult. The Government argue in the motion that the circumstances that should be defined as the loss of a majority are extremely narrow: under the terms of the motion, the Government could withdraw the Whip from half the Conservative party and still claim to have a technical majority on the Floor of the House. In fact, the motion could well store up future problems for the

Government, because it could be interpreted as an invitation to other potential rebels to risk a rebellion without bringing down the Government.

Mr. Kirkwood: The hon. Lady is making a powerful point. Does she agree that, although this provision may be available to the Government at a later stage in this Parliament, it also sets a precedent that will straddle Parliaments and could be used by future Governments in circumstances that the House cannot foresee today?

Mrs. Taylor: We have noticed that with some interest, but we would not intend to try to use the provision, because we are certain that one election victory does not give a Government absolute authority to do anything they like.
The Leader of the House has said outside the House and again here today that because independent Conservatives—or rebels—were elected as Conservative Members of Parliament, they should automatically be counted as Government supporters. Perhaps we should leave aside the fact that claiming the 1992 election victory as authority for anything is a bit rich coming from the Government, considering all the broken Tory taxation pledges. Be that as it may, the right hon. Gentleman is ignoring a few important facts, not least the reasons for the withdrawal of the Whip.

Sir Andrew Bowden: Surely the point is that these people were elected as Conservatives and are members of the Conservative party? They are thus part of the Conservative party.

Mrs. Taylor: The hon. Gentleman overlooks the simple fact that they are not members of the parliamentary Conservative party; there are other important ramifications to which I shall come later.
I remind the House that the Conservative Whip has been withdrawn from certain Members because they refused to support the Prime Minister on a vote that he had made a vote of confidence. We are not talking about a minor vote or an ordinary three-line Whip. How can the Government have it both ways? If Conservative Members cannot vote for the Government on a vote of confidence which the Prime Minister said could have led to a general election, how on earth can the Government count them as part of their majority from day to day?
The fact is that nobody does that. We have only to read the press reports—Tory press reports—of the day after to know that. I have already mentioned the House Library bulletin. We know that Tory central office has been in touch with the constituency chairs of the so-called rebels. We know that it is generally thought that withdrawal of the Whip puts Conservative Members beyond the pale. Indeed the hon. Member for Reigate (Sir G. Gardiner) said before Christmas on "The World at One" that the Government should restore their majority in the House of Commons by giving the Whip back to the rebels; so he clearly believes that the Government lost their majority by withdrawing the Whip from them.
The hon. Member for Great Yarmouth (Mr. Carttiss) went out of his way in the debate on the Christmas Adjournment to proclaim that he could no longer call the Prime Minister or the Chancellor of the Exchequer his right hon. Friend. On the VAT vote, the hon. Member for Ludlow (Mr. Gill) said that if he had still had the Whip he would have voted with the Government, but that as he


did not have it he would make up his own mind and take his own decision. If all the rebels thought the same, perhaps that is why most of them did not vote with the Government on VAT.
It may, of course, have been all these instances that led the Prime Minister to talk about whether the Whip should be restored to those who lost it at the end of November. Just before Christmas, on 20 December, he said:
In due course one can consider whether"—
not when—
they should be readmitted to the party whip … but it is not imminent at all. They must show that they are in the business of supporting the Government.
If their return to the fold is not imminent and if they must still show that they are in the business of supporting the Government—crawling back to subservience, as it has been described by the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West—how can they be counted as part of the Government's majority when we debate these issues?
Some Ministers are not sure whether they should be taking a tough or soft line, whether they should be wooing or abusing the so-called rebels. Even the Prime Minister has changed his tune on some occasions. Despite his toughness before Christmas, we heard a slightly different tone last weekend. Perhaps that is because he wants the votes of the rebels today, or wants them in the near future. The Secretary of State for Employment has said all along that he hopes to have the rebels back in the fold soon. He is adopting the gently, gently approach. That may be because he agreed with them at heart. It may be also because one day he may need their votes in a leadership election. One of the consequences of withdrawal of the Conservative Whip is that if there is a leadership election, those Members who do not have the Whip will not be able to take part in it.

Mr. Dixon: My hon. Friend's argument is extremely relevant. Is she aware that when the Committee of Selection met on the Wednesday at 4.15 pm to determine whether the rebels were still Conservative Members—that is what the Government were arguing—nominations for leadership of the 1922 Committee had finished at 12 noon? If the Committee of Selection had met the night before, would the Government have been claiming that the rebels were Conservative Members? They could well have submitted counter-nominations.

Mrs. Taylor: I understand that one member of the parliamentary Conservative party said today that he regarded the withdrawal of the Whip not as a disciplinary decision but as a political one. Perhaps that is what those concerned had in mind.

Sir Michael Neubert: I have been listening carefully to the hon. Lady's arguments. She lacks one crucial piece of evidence in securing the conviction that she seeks. Will she say what evidence she has that any one of my nine hon. Friends of whom she has been speaking has declared that he or she does not support the Government? We cannot rely on the House of Commons

bulletin and the person who compiles it. Does the compiler determine the composition of the House? If so, who is it?

Mrs. Taylor: I am interested in what the hon. Gentleman might mean by evidence that the rebels do not support the Government. Surely not voting for one's Prime Minister in a vote of confidence is pretty clear evidence that one does not support the Government.
I return to the central point that the Leader of the House made when he talked about the composition of the House being determined by the electorate in a general election. Opposition Members all live in the hope that if a general election were to be called today, tomorrow or next week, the rebel Members—the independent Conservative Members—would not be eligible to stand as parliamentary candidates in that election. It might be that they would stand as Conservative independents. They could stand as parliamentary candidates but not as official Conservative parliamentary candidates. The Leader of the House has confirmed that in our discussions.

Mr. Budgen: The issue is shrouded in some mystery. The answer depends on whether the Members concerned were selected by a Conservative association and whether that association was then expelled from the national union. The constitution of the Conservative party is as shrouded in mystery as the constitution of the United Kingdom.

Mrs. Taylor: I agree with the hon. Gentleman in one respect, and that is that many of these issues are shrouded in mystery. Every time a Conservative Member intervenes to clarify an issue, the waters are even more muddied.
It might be helpful to the House and to the country if correspondence and reports of telephone calls between Conservative central office and individual Conservative parties were placed in the Library, which would enable us all to have the full information. The hon. Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman) has made public some interpretations of the Conservative constitution which have been given to her. As the Leader of the House has said, however, all these matters are extremely vague. That does not help us. Some of those who have had the Conservative Whip withdrawn have been told that until the Whip is restored, if it is, they will not be able to stand as official Conservative candidates.
It may be that some Conservative Members would consider that an advantage. Some of them who are now in their places might think that their chances would be enhanced if they stood as independent Conservatives rather than official Conservatives come the next election. The hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) made it clear in a television interview that he is not concerned whether he stands as an official Conservative candidate or an independent one. I am sure that the House is aware that the hon. Member for Billericay is similarly not concerned. She stood as an independent candidate against an official Conservative candidate in 1974.
If the rebels are not eligible to stand as official Conservative party candidates, how can the House consider them to be eligible to be part of the Government's majority today? The real problem is that the Government have been in office for too long. They have been in office for so long that they think that they can get away with anything, both with their own Members and with the country. The truth is that the Prime Minister


has lost his authority in his party within the House. It is only a matter of time before the country has the opportunity to pass its verdict.

Sir Fergus Montgomery: This is a short debate and I shall try not to make a long speech.
I wish to pay tribute to the members of the Committee of Selection. I think that all nine of us would agree that it is a pleasant Committee. Nevertheless, we have our arguments. When I first became a member of the Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Sir M. Fox) was the Chairman. That was in the halcyon days when the Government had an enormous majority. With his usual impeccable timing, my hon. Friend moved on to fresh fields and pastures new and left me to hold the baby, when the Government had a small majority. I pay tribute to the members of the Committee because our arguments are always conducted in a civilised way. There have been no instances of anyone being unpleasant or descending to personalities.
The hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) was incorrect when she said that no agreement had been reached by the Committee. We reached a decision on a vote. It was because of that that the Opposition members of the Committee felt that the matter should be referred to the House. I did not dissent because I thought that if we could not reach a proper agreement in Committee, the matter should be decided by the House itself. At the same time, I am sorry that the issue has had to come to the Floor of the House. The Committee decided before the vote took place that the matter should be referred to the usual channels. A meeting was deferred for a week so that that could happen. Over the years, the usual channels have done a tremendous job in sorting out extremely difficult issues.
The speech of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House was constantly interrupted. He showed enormous patience. It is difficult to make a speech when one is being constantly deflected. I pay tribute to him. Many Leaders of the House would not have given way as often as my right hon. Friend did.
The motion is perfectly fair and deserves support. The problem arose because nine of my hon. Friends no longer have the Conservative Whip. As a consequence, the Committee of Selection had to decide whether they should be counted as Conservative Members or, when we decide the party proportions on Committees, whether they should go under the umbrella of the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood), the Chief Whip of the Liberal party who looks after the minority parties. I pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman because he consults the other parties fully before any nominations are made on behalf of the minority parties.
My nine hon. Friends continue to sit on the Conservative Benches. That is an important point. They have repeatedly stressed that they are Conservatives and that they support Conservative principles. Therefore, I believe that—this is the point that I made in Committee—they should be treated as such.

Mr. Hoon: When the Committee of Selection has considered similar problems, has there ever been an occasion on which an hon. Member leaving a political

party to sit as an independent has been treated as a member of another party, which is a subject of the motion of the Leader of the House?

Sir Fergus Montgomery: I am sorry, but I cannot give an answer to that. I was going to use as my precedent what happened in 1976, which is something to which the hon. Member for Dewsbury also referred. At that time, Hugh Delargy was Chairman of the Committee of Selection, and the Labour Government had lost their majority. That was the simple fact. A debate took place, in which Mr. Delargy said:
The Labour Party has a majority of 39 over the Conservatives. Most of the other 40 or so hon. Members belong to four political parties. They are independent parties with their own Leader, their own Whips and, more importantly, their own policies. They are the Liberals, the Scottish National Party, the United Ulster Unionist coalition and Plaid Cymru. There is also the SDLP of Northern Ireland. None of these parties was elected to support the Conservative Party in this House. They were not elected primarily to oppose the Labour Party. They were elected for positive reasons—to pursue certain policies and to serve their electorates."—[Official Report, 3 May 1976; Vol. 910, c. 984.
One can switch that argument around. Today, there are 60 more Conservative than Labour Members of Parliament. There are 23 Liberal Democrats and 24 other hon. Members who represent six different parties. I maintain that those Liberals and Members for the minority parties were not elected to support the Labour party today. They were not elected to oppose the Conservative party, to use the analogy that Hugh Delargy used then.
On 6 April 1976, the then Labour Government lost their overall majority, because of the death of Brian O'Malley, the Labour Member of Parliament for Rotherham. I think that there was parity at that time. The following day, John Stonehouse crossed the Floor of the House. His clothes were found on a beach in Florida and he turned up in Australia. He must have been a very strong swimmer. The point is that the Government's majority dropped to zero after the death of Brian O'Malley, and with the defection of John Stonehouse the Government had a minority.
Later in 1976, as I am sure that the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) will recall, the Labour Government lost other by-elections. There was also the defection of James Sillars and John Robertson, who left the Labour party to form what was called the "Scottish Labour party". That, of course, increased the deficit that the Labour Government had.
The situation today is very different from that in 1976. I disagree with the hon. Member for Dewsbury, because the problems in 1976 were caused as a result of by-election losses and because three hon. Members, who were elected as Labour Members in October 1974, became increasingly disenchanted with that party and crossed the Floor of the House. We voted on 3 May 1976 on whether the Labour Government should keep a majority on all Committees even though they had lost their majority in the House. The argument arose because Mr. Delargy gave his casting vote in the Committee of Selection to say that the Labour Government should keep a majority of one.

Mr. Dixon: indicated assent.

Sir Fergus Montgomery: I see that the hon. Gentleman is nodding.
I maintain that we had a majority on the Floor of the House. The point that I am making is that the Government had lost their majority. I found it quite amusing that the


hon. Members for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden), for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) and for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker)—he has not spoken yet, but has sent a letter to my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley—voted that day for the Labour Government to keep a majority of one on all Standing Committees, yet tonight they are putting up entirely different arguments.
The present Government have lost four seats in by-elections, and that has reduced our overall majority. My nine hon. Friends have shown no inclination at all to cross the Floor of the House. They have not wanted to join any other party. They have maintained repeatedly that they are still Conservatives. I hope that tonight, when we vote on the motion, they will support the Government.

Mr. Archy Kirkwood: The hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale (Sir F. Montgomery) has played a very distinguished role as Chairman of the Committee of Selection. He has, largely through his own personal qualities, managed to keep the argument on an even keel in terms of the personalities involved. The Committee of Selection was clearly in a difficult position, and he was quite right to take the decision, supported by his colleagues on the Committee, to bring the matter to the Floor of the House. The Committee could have used its majority to railroad just about anything through, but if it had done so it would have ruined the relationship that is essential for the Committee to work properly. I pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman.
I watched the Leader of the House carefully and have not seen him look quite as uncomfortable at the Dispatch Box for some time. He made a speech, but I do not think that he was particularly committed to the merits of the case that he was seeking to establish. I say that because the motion is designed to cover the Government's embarrassment. It was not the right hon. Gentleman's fault, as it was not his decision; it was taken in other parts of the Government.
The Government are trying to make the best of a bad job. Politically, they are trying to have their cake and eat it. They cast nine of their Members into the wilderness, yet they are trying to maintain them as part of their number for the purposes of the Committee of Selection. The two things are entirely incompatible.
I have a clear view about the relationship between any Member of Parliament and his or her political group. A simple analogy is that of contract law, under which there must be consensus between both parties before an agreement can be struck. An hon. Member must say that he or she is willing to be associated with a parliamentary group and, equally important, the grouping in turn must associate itself with that Member. Those two parts of the bargain are essential before consensus is possible. It seems quite impossible to argue that somebody can be considered as a member of a parliamentary grouping without those two essential parts of the bargain being struck and without consensus being achieved. If that is true, it is impossible for one part of that bargain to be withdrawn unilaterally and the situation to remain the same. It seems inconsistent to argue otherwise.
The motion is bad because it establishes a bad precedent. I listened to the valuable speech made from the Labour Front Bench by the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor). I made the point to her in an intervention—I hold it to be true—that the House will invariably return to this precedent, but goodness knows when and in what context. We have trawled over some of the precedents of 1974 and before that. One day, this motion and the action that the Government take will be used in circumstances that we cannot foresee and in a way that is wholly bad practice. It could be used by others in a future Government, such as the hon. Lady, to disfranchise the left wing of the parliamentary Labour party, which would be equally as wrong as the Government's approach to the motion.

Mr. Newton: The hon. Gentleman refers to the absence of precedent. I advert to the fact that the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) made no comment on what we have been told by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) are the standing orders of the Labour party—that the removal of the Whip makes no difference in the Labour party. Therefore, my motion is effectively the same as the standing orders of the Labour party.

Mr. Kirkwood: The Leader of the House is looking in the wrong direction if he expects me to defend the official Opposition. I have enough trouble trying to defend the Ulster Unionists, the nationalist parties and the others as the shop steward for the minority parties. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) is big enough and long enough in the tooth to be able to answer for himself.
I want to make two quick points in the remainder of the time available to me. Despite the assurances that the Leader of the House gave to the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen) and others—I shall read Hansard carefully tomorrow—unless there are changes in the practical way of working that until now the Committee of Selection has adopted, I do not think that he can deliver that promise.
The only member of the Committee of Selection who invariably is obliged because of his position to offer alternatives for consideration for the make-up of Standing Committees is myself. By definition, I am supposed to look after and try to reconcile the conflicts between the other minority parties and my own. Members of the Committee will confirm that from time to time I will announce to it that I have had bids that I have not been able to resolve by bilateral discussions from the minority parties for positions on Standing Committees. If I cannot reconcile them, the obvious commonsense method of proceeding is for me to go to the Committee of Selection and for the Committee, using its powers under the Standing Orders, to make that decision, as it is entitled to do.
The other two main parties exercise their discretion, perfectly properly under Standing Order No. 86(2), in assessing the composition of the House and the qualification for membership of the Standing Committees before they come to the Committee of Selection. Otherwise we would all be arguing about one another's suggested members. Invariably what happens in the Committee of Selection is that names are proffered and accepted without argument and the only member of the Committee of Selection who offers alternatives at the moment is me.
The only way in which the Leader of the House can deliver the promise that he has just given to the nine rebels is to give them a guarantee, which would have to be implemented by one of the members of the Committee of Selection, that any competing bids that were made by the nine Members referred to in the motion will be reported to the Conservative Whips office and that those bids, if they have not been reconciled by discussion, will be reported by somebody to the Committee of Selection so that it knows that some of those nine Members have made an application to be considered. It has no other means of knowing. No machinery exists at the moment for doing that. Therefore, unless procedures change, it is impossible for that fact to be made known to the Committee of Selection.
The Leader of the House will correct me if I am putting words in his mouth, but I understand that he will now make sure that any bids made by any of the nine Members whom we are debating this evening that are turned down and not automatically accepted and recommended by the Conservative members of the Committee of Selection will be separately announced so that the Committee of Selection will know that they have asked to sit on a Standing Committee but have not been included in the Conservative numbers. That procedure would be new, but it is the only way in which the Leader of the House can deliver the undertakings that he gave earlier this evening.
I can tell the Leader of the House why I believe that to be so. There is some confusion about it and I do not want to make too much of it, but it is my clear recollection that when the hon. Member for Torbay (Mr. Allason) was absent for the Maastricht vote he was disfranchised in exactly the same way as the nine Members whom we are debating this evening. He had, prima facie, a good case to be considered for the Standing Committee that considered the Intelligence Services Act 1994. At that time he did not have the benefit of being in receipt of the Conservative party Whip, so the matter arrived in my bailiwick in the Committee of Selection. I proposed two names: my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Mr. Jones), who represents GCHQ and so had a proper reason to be considered for that Standing Committee, and the hon. Member for Torbay. The decision was taken in a perfectly competent way by the Committee of Selection.
Perhaps that should not have happened; I may not have had the necessary authority. I did not speak to the hon. Member for Torbay; I was simply told by someone that it would be the proper thing to do. I did not want to take any chance of his not being considered, so as a failsafe fall-back position I decided to make that recommendation. As usual with the minority parties, I put two alternative names forward and one was preferred over the other.
That is my clear recollection of what happened to a Conservative Member who had no Whip. No Conservative members of the Committee of Selection demurred and said that I was not entitled to do that because the hon. Member for Torbay was in some strange way still a member of the Conservative party. That nomination was put forward, it was considered and it was rejected because the claim of my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham was considered to be superior. Therefore, there is a clear precedent, which the Government conveniently seek to gloss over and forget in a way that is neither sensible nor fair.
The motion is a pretty tawdry little attempt to try to clean up a bit of difficulty into which the Government have got themselves. The House of Commons should have nothing to do with helping them out of the hole into which they have dug themselves.

Mr. John Biffen: I do not usually have the immediate presence of my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale (Sir F. Montgomery) on these Benches, but I am delighted that that is the situation this evening because I should like to pay tribute to him as Chairman of the Committee of Selection. The Committee does a tremendous and unsung task for the House. It is a good example of where this place properly has the property of aggressive rhetoric, but behind it there is a great deal of constructive work of consensual politics, without which this place could not operate. Occasionally the Committee is placed in great difficulty and it invites the advice of the House—usually in circumstances where its advice is rather less than wholly detached.
I have always assumed that the crucial task of the Committee of Selection is to ensure that the Government's business can be carried through, not wholly on the Government's terms. One of the crucial aspects of the work of the Committee of Selection is its arm's-length relationship with the Government—arm's length, but, none the less, it must still be touching. One accepts that.
If a Government have a whisker majority, as the Government of February 1974 did, the matter is relatively easy for the Committee of Selection: it provides for a Government in a minority. The difficulty arises in the circumstances that we now have and which we had in 1976 when a Government lose their overall majority but effectively, on day-to-day operations, they retain a majority. They can still claim to have the legislative authority to conduct the Queen's Speech, and usually the wisdom not to draft that Queen's Speech so that they cannot obtain a Second Reading for Bills. That is the present situation.
This is a rather grubby, practical problem. I say that because these are good-natured occasions but for a moment we must come back to that one reality. The problem that confronts the Committee of Selection, which it would like resolved by this cathartic experience this evening, is how to secure a Committee structure that will enable the Government, having secured the Second Reading for a Bill, to proceed with it through its subsequent parliamentary stages.
My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House has suggested one formula, and my hon. Friends the Members for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) and for Ludlow (Mr. Gill) have suggested another. They say that they quite understand that if a Bill receives a Second Reading the Committee of Selection must propose a Standing Committee that can reasonably reflect the view that the House took on Second Reading. To my mind, that idea was made in a constructive and thoughtful fashion.
My hon. Friends were attempting to disengage the House from a difficulty that is almost inevitably of a temporary nature. A Parliament in which one party has a majority but not an overall majority cannot be one that will last more than a couple of years or so. We know the terminal date of this Parliament, so we are talking about a period of roughly two years at the very longest. My hon. Friends have suggested a solution that I am sure will be


studied, although it will to some extent be rejected by the perfectionists, who will feel that the standard formula applying to the construction of Standing Committees is much to be preferred to the pick-and-choose basis suggested by my hon. Friends.
The debate, however, has shown us that this is a great occasion of imperfections. My hon. Friends need not be too distressed about what they have done as a piece of private enterprise; although it is imperfect it is an attempt to meet a central difficulty for the House, on an admittedly temporary basis for this Parliament.
I believe that my hon. Friends have made a helpful suggestion, and I hope that it will not only unite sentiment on the Government side of the House but will appeal to Opposition Members, who will also realise that this is a House of Commons problem. Admittedly, it occurs only once every 20 years or so—thanks be for that—but when it does it requires a more constructive response than an exchange of good-natured but hysterical party political polemic.
The speech that has dominated this evening's proceedings is that delivered by the Leader of the House who, with characteristic courtesy, tried to thread his way through a thicket of difficulties in defining what a Member without a Whip is for the purposes of law making—a crucial element of House of Commons procedure. Like everyone who has had any connection with the usual channels, my right hon. Friend knows that a seamless robe of difficulties flows from certain decisions concerning legislation, which are then applied to accommodation and then to the provision of assistance via the so-called Short money. The whole business is a nightmare, and I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his courage and stamina in approaching it.
When my right hon. Friend's speech was all over, however, I thought that my ideal reply would have been, "Wouldn't it be easier to restore the Whip?" Presumably we are in a situation of graduated response, but Home Office issues have been batted to and fro in the House over the past few days to such an extent that I still feel quite unable to deal with questions of parliamentary discipline and the remedial consequences of a certain dose of custodial treatment.
I am now beguiled by the thought of the Chief Whip hearing a tap on his door and opening it to find my hon. Friend the Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman) in a penitent sheet, waving a sheaf of architectural plans for the renovation of his office. I hope, if not pray, for that deliverance, but somehow I feel that it will not come. Therefore, I look to the Leader of the House, in the light of whatever vote takes place, to bear it in mind as we proceed from here that there cannot be a full restoration of Conservative fortunes and fighting ability until we resolve the miserable business of the whipless nine and the powerful degree of support that they enjoy in the country.

Mr. Don Dixon: I shall speak briefly to explode two myths, one about the way in which the Committee of Selection works and the other about what the Leader of the House has said about the way in which the Labour party withdraws the Whip. I hope that the Tory rebels will listen attentively.
Before I explain, I shall congratulate the Chairman of the Committee of Selection on the good job that he does. We try to work together as cordially as possible, but tonight the minority parties have been spoken about as if they were on the Labour side. I remind Conservative Members that a minority party, the Ulster Unionist party, saved the Government's bacon by voting with them on a European finance Bill and preventing a general election. I put that on the record straight away.
For the benefit of the Tory rebels, I shall explain Labour party standing orders, and how the Whip is withdrawn from a Labour Member. First, the person concerned is interviewed by the Chief Whip and Deputy Chief Whip and asked for an explanation of his or her actions. If the Chief Whip is not satisfied with the explanation given, he then reports to the shadow Cabinet. If the shadow Cabinet is not satisfied and agrees, it submits a motion to a special meeting of the parliamentary Labour party, where there is a full discussion and every Labour Member of Parliament has the opportunity to vote on whether the Whip should be withdrawn.
The Leader of the House seems to want to cite what we do, but the best thing that he could do would be to take our standing orders back to the 1922 Committee. If he did, the Tory party would look a lot better than it does now.
I have pointed out to my hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor), who made a great case in her speech, that when the Committee of Selection met at a quarter past 4 on the Wednesday, the nominations for the leadership at the 1922 Committee having closed at midday that day, the Government claimed that the rebels who had had the Whip withdrawn were still Conservative Members. I asked whether, if the Committee had met the previous night, before the nominations for the leadership closed, the Government would have claimed that those people were still Conservative Members. If they were, they could have gone to the 1922 Committee and assembled the number of names required for a stalking horse in the leadership election.

Mr. William Cash: As we are talking about Labour party politics, will the hon. Gentleman explain what would happen if the Leader of the Opposition took one view on whether the Whip should be withdrawn and the parliamentary party took another? Who would prevail?

Mr. Dixon: The vote would be taken at a special meeting of the parliamentary Labour party and the majority would decide, whatever the leader of the Labour party or anyone else wanted. I think that that is a good system, and I hope that when the Tory rebels have the Whip restored they will go to the 1922 Committee and try to have its standing orders changed.
My hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury mentioned official Conservative candidates. May I ask the Leader of the House what would happen if the rebellion by the nine—or the eight—Members led to the Government's being defeated on a confidence motion and a general election followed? Would those nine or eight Members be official Tory candidates in the election caused by their having defied the Tory Whip? That question has been asked and the Leader of the House has not given an explanation.
I shall now explode the other myth that has grown over the years concerning the way in which the Committee of Selection works. Invariably, when we meet on a


Wednesday a motion is on the Order Paper to set up a Standing Committee to consider a Bill that has received a Second Reading. The Chairman of the Committee of Selection proposes the Conservative names, which are never queried by the Labour or Liberal members of the Committee of Selection. The Labour names are proposed by me or my hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore (Mr. Powell) and are never queried by the Government or the Liberal party. When the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) proposes the minority party names, they are left primarily to him. That is how a Standing Committee is selected.
Where the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale (Sir F. Montgomery) gets the Conservative names from, I do not know, but I have a good suspicion. I have no doubt that the Government and Conservative Members know where he gets the names from. I remind hon. Members that we are not talking about Select Committees. A Select Committee is appointed by the House of Commons. When a name is proposed to the Committee of Selection it is then put to the House and hon. Members can object. Indeed, if hon. Members continue to object, there has to be a debate and vote on the Floor of the House.
Standing Committees fall into a different category. Once the Committee of Selection announces the names, no one can object. If a person is taken off a Standing Committee or is not put on it, no one can veto the decision of the Committee of Selection.

Sir Fergus Montgomery: I would much rather have volunteers on Standing Committees. Conservative Members sometimes write to me to say that they would like to be considered to serve on a particular Standing Committee. It is much better for someone who has an interest in the Bill to serve as a volunteer than to drag people on to Committees.

Mr. Dixon: I do not know where the Chairman of the Committee of Selection gets the names from, but they are never queried and Members never object to them.
The hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire was right when he said that the Government directed the hon. Member for Torbay (Mr. Allason) to him to try for one of the minority party places when the hon. Gentleman had the Whip withdrawn and wanted to become a member of the Committee that considered the Intelligence Services Bill. How on earth can the Government claim that the nine Conservative Members who have lost the Whip should continue to be regarded as Conservative Members? Those nine Members do not have a chance to be selected to serve on a Standing Committee.
I put a question to the Chairman of the Committee of Selection: what would happen if the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen) wanted to serve on the Finance Bill Committee? I know that he has an interest in finance. Would he be a Government nominee? I doubt it very much. The Committee of Selection works by selecting Committees to reflect representation on the Floor of the House. It is done on a mathematical basis. The Government claim that they have 330 Members. The Opposition have 270 and the others have 47.
The Labour party will not gain from the nine Conservative Members no longer being treated as members of the Tory party. We will still have the same number of members on a Standing Committee. Those who will gain are those dealt with by the Liberal Chief Whip.
This is not a case of the Labour party wanting to dominate the Standing Committees. The people who will benefit are not only the nine members of the Conservative party who have lost or resigned the Whip but the 47 others represented by the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire.
There has been some argument in the Committee of Selection and on the Floor of the House. The Leader of the House has not answered the question put by my hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury. When is a Conservative Member of Parliament not a Conservative Member of Parliament? We say that it is when he does not have the Conservative Whip. Those nine Members are now in no man's land. They have no representation on any Committee because they are selected through the usual channels. Those Members cannot go to the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire, so they have no say. They are doubly penalised by the Government. They have had the Whip taken away from them. They are no longer members of the 1922 Committee. They will not be able to serve on any Standing Committee as a result of today's motion.

Mr. Tony Marlow: There is a saying that if we legislate or pass a motion in haste, we repent at leisure. I am sympathetic to what the Government are trying to achieve in the motion. It has two aspects—the short term and the long term. As is usual in such cases, the long-term issue is more important than the short-term issue. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House has told the House that he will not, through the usual channels, seek to veto the ambitions of my eight colleagues and myself to be selected to serve on Standing Committees. Certain colleagues have said that that means that we will be treated in exactly the same way as any other Conservative Member. I am not sure that that is precisely what my right hon. Friend said.
Let us move on and consider the long-term issues. The motion seeks to perfect the Standing Orders of the House as they apply to the Committee of Selection. If we pass the motion today, it will guide the Committee of Selection for the indefinite future. I accept, and I believe that everyone would accept, that if the House gives a Bill a Second Reading, that is the will of the House. The House and any sensible person would wish and everyone would expect the Standing Committee to have a majority which would support the principles of the Bill so that it could progress through the Standing Committee stage. That is accepted and understood.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Shropshire, North (Mr. Biffen) was generous and kind about the amendment that I and my hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Mr. Gill) have tabled. We have tried to achieve the principle that I have outlined. I accept that the drafting is amateur, but I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House understands the principle behind it. I am sure that my right hon. Friend, with his superior skills and resources, could table an amendment that would give effect to the principle that we seek to achieve.
What worries me is that the motion moved by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House on behalf of the Government goes further than necessary. It has long-term implications. My right hon. Friend is an honourable and scrupulous Leader of the House. If he gives an undertaking, we all accept it and expect that he will


behave honourably. However, with the best will in the world, my right hon. Friend will not be there for ever. There could at some stage be a change. Someone else could take his position. There could be a change in Government. The motion will still be there. The House will have voted for the motion.
The motion means that if an hon. Member leaves the Government party or is forced from the Government party, short of that hon. Member joining another party, he will still count as part of the Government tally when Committee places are allocated. He may become a political untouchable. The usual channels may obstruct his ability to pursue his constituents' interests. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House would not do that, but under different management and leadership it could happen. If it happened, the hon. Member would not have the same ability to pursue his constituents' interests as other Members of Parliament.
Such an hon. Member could be adversely affected, but the Government would not be. Where it mattered, the Government would be safeguarded, but where it mattered to the hon. Member, he could be undermined and less able effectively to pursue his constituents' interests. At the very least, that is unfair and against natural justice. More important, it would enhance the power, prestige and influence available to the friendly gestapo in the Whips Office. That is at the expense of the individual and, more particularly, the individualistic Member of Parliament.
Surely, in this cradle of democracy, if we are to change the balance of power between the authorities, the establishment and the Back Benches, we wish to move that power towards the Back Benches, not towards the establishment.
The motion effectively states that, once elected as a member of the Government party—in this instance the Conservative party—despite any damascene conversion that an hon. Member might undergo, and one's views on policy might change by 180 per cent., as long as one does not join another party, even a one-man independent party, one will be counted as a member of that party for the Government's convenience. In the long term, that cannot be right. It might be right while we are under the jurisdiction of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, but in principle it seems very wrong.
Those of us who were elected as official Conservatives at the last election know that if we had not stood as such candidates we would be most unlikely to be here. Having been elected, we are, as the Prime Minister says, very true blue Conservatives. By and large, we want to support the Government more than many of our colleagues.
The procedure suggested in the motion is tantamount to some of the principles that underlie proportional representation. For House of Commons purposes, the motion implies that a party as a whole is elected, not an accumulation of individual Members of Parliament, representing individual constituencies, with individual consciences, eccentricities and, perhaps, changing policy priorities. I was not aware that the Conservative party had embraced the radical proportional representation position of the Liberal party, but this motion seems to imply just that. I caution my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House to look at the motion from that point of view.
I respect and accept the objectives of the Government motion, but I am concerned about its detail and its long-term implications. I invite all hon. Members to consider carefully those implications because, although they may not visualise them at the moment, there could be times when the motion will affect them and their power to act in their constituents' interests. A short-term solution may be needed but, as ever, there seem to be uncovenanted long-term implications.

Mr. Peter Hardy: The hon. Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) invited us to consider the implications of the motion. I would be grateful if the Leader of the House could consider one aspect of the matter that has not yet been touched upon—the representation by this House in the Council of Europe and the Western European Union. At present, this country has 18 full and 18 alternate members. The Government have 10 full and nine alternate members, the minor parties have one full and one alternate member, and the Labour party has seven full and eight alternate members. The proportion was generous to the Government at the time of the 1992 general election. Since then, they have lost seats and, with the removal of the Whip from nine Conservative Members, they do not command half the membership of the House, which would justify occupancy of 18 of the 36 places, but merely 321 Members. The Government are, therefore, grossly over-represented.
I do not believe that I should challenge the credentials of the British delegation in Strasbourg in January on the ground that the Conservative party is grossly over-represented. I would certainly be prepared to do so, however, and have done so before over another issue, as the Leader of the House will recall. The fact remains that, if this situation continues, we are entitled to challenge the number of seats that the British Conservative party occupies. We would be challenging the largest delegation to that parliamentary assembly and it might well mean that the other Conservative parties that form the Conservative group will wonder why a party that occupies less than half the seats in its national Parliament should have more than half the seats—certainly more than half the full members' seats—allotted to its delegation. The other Conservative parties might well start to question why the British Conservative party takes seven eighths of the chairmanships and vice-chairmanships that accrue to their political group. There are a lot of implications and it might be wise for the Leader of the House to pay attention to that aspect.

Mr. Donald Anderson: It would also be in the Government's interests to reduce that gross over-representation for pairing purposes.

Mr. Hardy: That may be the case, although we did not go away quite as often as usual last year, as my hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow (Mr. Dixon) will recall. He might also like to know that the situation cost some of us a great deal of sleep as well.
Even before the removal of the Whip from nine of its Members, the Conservative party might have been taking an excessive share. If the present situation still applies at the end of January, when the Council of Europe assembly next meets, the Leader of the House must not be surprised to find that the position is challenged in Strasbourg.

Mr. John MacGregor: In view of the time, I shall endeavour to be brief. I pay tribute to the work of my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale (Sir F. Montgomery) as Chairman of the Committee of Selection, which is largely unpraised in public, although it is very deserving of praise. I understood him to say that this matter had come to the Floor of the House largely as a result of Opposition pressure. I listened carefully, therefore, to what the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) said when she tried to establish a case for changing our procedures for the composition of Standing Committees. She did not make her case, or deal with the central issue. I notice that she did not reply to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House when he asked her to explain the position that her hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) took in a recent letter to the Chairman of the Committee of Selection. If that was his position and the Labour party is changing its position now, it merely demonstrates the hollowness and the hypocritical nature of the debate that they are trying to have here today. If the hon. Gentleman rejects the position that he put forward a week ago, it demonstrates yet another example of the Labour Front-Bench team changing its position within a week, a day, or sometimes an hour, as was the case with value added tax on school fees.
The hon. Lady made a number of extraneous digs that had nothing to do with the debate and I assumed, therefore, that that was the purpose of this exercise. The only issue is what constitutes the composition of the House when considering nominations to Standing Committees. The precedents seem clear and I do not need to refer to them in detail as my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House and my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale did so—especially the 1976 precedent. The hon. Member for Dewsbury also mentioned that, but she did not make a case for any change from the 1976 position, which was to establish that, if the majority party loses its majority through by-elections, or the declared departure of sufficient Members, and if they subsequently join or establish other parties, that constitutes the loss of a majority. That has patently not happened in this case, which is why my right hon. Friend's motion, which he tabled to clarify the position, seems right and should be supported.
It is not merely a case of apparently leaving an official whipped position. The Member concerned has clearly to indicate that he has crossed the Floor of the House and established another party as Mr. Stonehouse did. It must be clearly established in Parliament and in our constituencies that the Member concerned has ceased to be a member of the party. That is the clear and simple issue that is under consideration.
The party Whip does not enter into it. I believe that, in this context, "Erskine May" does not refer to whipping or to party arrangements of that sort. We are all familiar with the occasions on which Members ignore the Whip and vote against their party on certain issues. That vote and that rejection of the Whip does not constitute a change of party, or a change in the composition of the House.
On the argument by my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow), I do not think that the position of Members who no longer have the Whip is affected by this issue. I do not think that it affects their

responsibilities as Members of Parliament, or their ability to pursue Members' interests. I do not really have time to give way, but I shall do so if the hon. Gentleman is brief.

Mr. Geoffrey Robinson: The right hon. Gentleman's argument is tantamount to the point made by the shadow Leader of the House in her opening remarks—that if the Whip were removed from 100 Conservative Members, it would not change anything either. That is the most absurd proposition that I have heard during this debate.

Mr. MacGregor: I am coming to the membership of the party, but I must make it clear that the question of the Whip does not enter into the matter—[Interruption.] May I pursue my argument about the view expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North? All that we are discussing is the opportunity to serve as a member of a Standing Committee on a particular Bill. It is inevitable that, given the large number of members in a majority party, many hon. Members who wish to serve on a Standing Committee are prevented from doing so because, physically, they simply cannot all be on it.
So my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North is not on as strong a point as he thinks because this matter does not affect his role as a Member of Parliament representing his constituents, nor would it be fair to say that an hon. Member who leaves the party Whip or establishes a separate party of his own should have preference in selecting the Standing Committee of his choice. Indeed, as my hon. Friend will confirm, he would not have that preference if he were part of a small minority party. So that is not the central issue. The central issue is how the composition of the House is established and whether it is right that that should be reflected in Standing Committee membership.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Shropshire, North (Mr. Biffen) referred to amendment (d). He would be the first to acknowledge that that is a minefield—he said himself that it is an extraordinarily difficult area. The danger of considering an issue such as the recommendation in amendment (d) is that it represents a radical departure from all precedents. On such an issue, one must be extremely careful before going for a radical departure.
I suggest to former Leaders of the House that a moment's thought reveals real difficulties in the amendment. How do we define "interests and groupings"? While individual hon. Members may be prepared to support a Second Reading, they may feel passionately about individual aspects of a Bill. Do they therefore have an undue position in relation to the selection of the Standing Committee? Does not that give that representative interest an undue ability to change the composition of the Bill in Standing Committee?
I do not have time to go into some of the other aspects.

Mr. Gill: Following what my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) said, does not the right hon. Gentleman recognise that the motion adds to the power of the Executive? Anything that adds to the power of the Executive risks reducing the power of Back Benchers as a consequence.

Mr. MacGregor: The point that I was making was that the amendment contains many difficulties that would not necessarily be in the interests of the House as a whole.
Many definitions would have to be established, which may give undue influence to particular interests or groupings. On the power of the Executive, the motion follows the established practice of the House and does not, therefore, add to the Executive's power.
Finally, may I answer the point raised by the hon. Member for Coventry, North-West (Mr. Robinson). In accordance with established practice and in so far as it applies in this case, as far as I am aware none of my hon. Friends to whom the Opposition have drawn attention have declared that they no longer support the Conservative party or the broad generality of its legislative programme; nor have they proclaimed that they belong to a wholly different party or severed themselves from their local Conservative associations, and they have made that clear to their association members and electors. On the contrary, they have made it clear that they continue to support the Conservative party.
That is the relevant point in relation to the composition of the House. It is the point which the motion addresses and why I support it.

Mr. Ray Powell: I shall be brief, as another hon. Member wishes to speak before the debate is wound up.
It appears that the Government, particularly the Prime Minister and the Leader of the House, have changed their opinions since 29 November last year. When my hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Ms Anderson) asked the Prime Minister to
confirm reports that the President of the Board of Trade is looking again at the privatisation of the Post Office",
the Prime Minister replied:
The hon. Lady should not be in any doubt that we think that the right decision, when we have a majority in the House, will be to privatise the Post Office."—[Official Report, 29 November 1994; Vol. 250, c. 1076.]
We recognise that the Government do not have a majority in the House at present.
As a member of the Committee of Selection for a number of years who has served under the excellent chairmanship of the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale (Sir F. Montgomery), I am glad to have a debate of this nature, so that hon. Members realise what work the Committee undertakes, and the number of Committees that it sets up. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow (Mr. Dixon) about the functioning of that Committee and the cordial manner in which we conduct our business, although there are often great differences between its members.
I am concerned about the Government's double standards. I have great sympathy with some of the hon. Members who have had the Whip suspended, as I well understand their beliefs and the stance that they have taken. Whether it was a vote of confidence in the Government or not, they were prepared to stand by their principles and standards, and vote against the Government.
I am surprised, however, at the ensuing arrogance by the Government. Immediately those hon. Members voted

against them on principle, they decided to suspend the Conservative Whip. The next day, they tried to persuade the Committee of Selection that, because of the numerical strength of the Conservative party in the House, they had the right to retain their representation on Committees. I doubt whether the Government expect the House to agree that they should have such double standards.
Only six days later, we debated on the Floor of the House the extension of VAT on fuel. I know what happened in the vote, because, as the pairing Whip, I can look at the vote every night and see who voted for and against. Those Tories who voted to defeat the Government on that issue were not necessarily the hon. Members who had had the Whip suspended. Why, then, do the Government have double standards and take the Whip from some but not from others? The basic principle was the same, yet the Government did not take the Tory Whip away from hon. Members on that occasion.
I admire the way in which my hon. Friend the shadow Leader of the House prepared and presented her case, because it covered all the points discussed by the Committee of Selection, but I am still concerned that we have not yet had a reply from the Leader of the House—I do not know whether we shall have one—about how he will place the suspended Members on those Committees. I agree with others who have expressed their concern about whether the precedent which we may be swayed to accept tonight will be extended to all other Governments and procedures in the future, and whether hon. Members who might have the Whip suspended can retain their Committee membership.
The list that I have before me shows all Committee members until 16 December 1994. On a Committee of a round figure of nine, which is the same number of members as the Committee of Selection, there would be five Conservatives, four Labour members and one independent or minority party member. Once the Whip has been taken from some Tory Members, on a Committee of nine there would be four Conservatives, four Labour members and one other. In effect, it would mean that the Committee would not be controlled by the Government.
We must understand the Government's motive in ensuring that they retain their numerical strength on Committees. If the Committees were reduced in size, they would become a minority Government, and would have to accept that they could not put all those hon. Members on the Committee. The important issue is the numerical strength of all the Committees. The Leader of the House knows that it is not a question of principles. The principles are involved, however, for those Members who have had the Whip withdrawn, because if they are not careful, as a result of a decision tonight they may be denied any possibility of being retained on Committees, other than Select Committees, which are not the issue tonight.
Those Members would be well advised to join the Labour party in the Lobby in support of the amendment, which would ensure that Parliament does not have to subscribe to a decision forced on it by the Leader of the House.

Mr. Jeff Rooker: This has been a useful debate. I suspect this is not last time that we will have such a debate, if for no other reason than the terms of the Government's motion, which refers to


the party which received an overall majority".
Those words do not exist in our Standing Orders.
We have always understood that the Conservative party is a wholly owned subsidiary of its current leader, which publishes no accounts and has no written rules. It now transpires that the same applies to the Conservative parliamentary party. I believe I am correct when I say that its only written rules are those to trigger a leadership election. It does not have any standing orders or written code of conduct, unlike the parliamentary Labour party. That raises the question, what does the Conservative Whip mean? What does membership of the Conservative parliamentary party or membership of the 1922 Committee, although it represents Back Benchers only, mean?
Our constituents understand the difference between the Labour and Conservative parties, but how are they to understand that now, according to the Tory party, everything in the House is built on a myth? The Conservative parliamentary party is now in trouble, because it has lost its majority in the House. The fact that some of its members were not prepared to lay down their political lives in a vote of confidence to keep the Prime Minister in power shows that their party no longer commands a majority.
What do our constituents make of it all when it turns out that, at the whim of the Prime Minister—just one member of the Conservative parliamentary party—and probably the Government Chief Whip, it was decided to withdraw the Whip from some colleagues? They made that decision behind closed doors, and did not seek the approval of their party. In that manner, the Whip was withdrawn from eight Conservative Members in one week—perhaps the same will happen to 80 in a following week. All that was done without seeking the approval of the 1922 Committee, let alone the rest of the Conservative parliamentary party.
The same could not happen under a Labour Government, because, under party rules, every Labour Member of Parliament signs a contract—a document.[Interruption.] Oh, yes. On selection as a Labour party candidate, one signs an agreement to abide by the written standing orders of the parliamentary Labour party. Those written rules include a written code of conduct in which certain procedures are laid down.
No such written procedures exist for the Conservative parliamentary party. We are entitled to ask where the line is drawn as to how many Conservative Members can have the Whip withdrawn while the Prime Minister of the day still maintains that his party has a mythical majority in the House. We need the answer to that question.
Those hon. Members who have lost the Whip clearly want it back—it would have been so much easier if just that had happened—and they need to know the terms on which they must crawl back into the Conservative party. If they were Labour Members of Parliament, there would be no secrets about those terms. We have a written code of conduct—a public document—which is part of our standing orders and is available to anyone. It lays down the procedures governing expulsion from the party, suspension of the Whip and the procedures to get it back. It also makes clear the conduct that one is expected to maintain when one has either had the Whip withdrawn or has been expelled from the party.
A similar situation to that confronting the House tonight could never arise under a Labour Government. We are therefore entitled to demand a proper explanation from the Conservative party before it cheats again—it is cheating on the rules of the House by creating Conservative Members of Parliament for one purpose and suspending them for another.
The motion is all about trying to keep a weakened Prime Minister in power. The Opposition and the public demand that the Conservatives get their act in order. They should publish their accounts and make written rules about the conduct of those who are and are not members of the Conservative parliamentary party. They should define the twilight area in which Conservative Members who are elected by the people according to their election addresses and their party's programme are then cast aside by a member of their party, the given leader, without any approval from their colleagues. All of a sudden, however, the Government then turn round and say, "No, no, they are really part of us collectively, because we need to keep our majority to force through the House all the legislation that we want."
The Conservative Government want to maintain their numbers on any Standing Committee—Conservative Members currently account for more than half the membership of a Committee—because they claim that more than half of the Members of the House are members of the Conservative party. That is not true. We already know that the Conservatives won less than half the votes of the electorate.
Tonight the Government are cheating on the rules. They are placing the Clerks of the House in an impossible position. They are sending the wrong signals to the Committee of Selection, which, frankly, puts the Chairman and the rest of that Committee in a dishonourable position. I am not claiming that individuals are acting dishonourably, but that the collective arrangements are dishonourable.
The Leader of the House owes it to the House and his party to explain how the Conservative parliamentary party can operate without any written rules, unlike the parliamentary Labour party. At some time, I also hope that I shall get the courtesy of a reply to the letter that I wrote to the chairman of the 1922 Committee.

Mr. Newton: With permission, Madam Speaker. I should like to reply to the debate.
The hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) said that he felt that I had been uneasy as I presented my arguments. That may have been the impression gained through some deficiency in my presentation, but I assure the hon. Gentleman that I believe strongly in the points that I put, for reasons that I shall come back to in a moment.
We have had a rather good-natured debate in the circumstances and a number of engaging interventions, not least from some of my hon. Friends whose position is at issue. My right hon. Friend the Member for Shropshire, North (Mr. Biffen) made a characteristically perceptive speech about some of the difficulties of presenting the issues in the House. I am not sure that I can go as far as saying that I agreed with every word of his speech, but I had some sympathy with the perceptions that he expressed about those difficulties.
I am grateful to my predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, South (Mr. MacGregor) for the effective way in which he demolished some of the arguments of the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) and others.
I give an undertaking to the hon. Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy) that I shall draw his remarks to the attention of those responsible for the appointment of Members to the bodies he mentioned. The Committee of Selection is not, of course, responsible for those appointments.
I respect the views of my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) and the reasons he gave for tabling his amendment. I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, South about the impracticability of the proposals contained in my hon. Friend's amendment. I understand the reasons behind them, but, in practice, his proposals could not be operated as he envisages. They would represent a mathematical nightmare for the Committee of Selection. The position of the Members in question would be a good deal worse if they were added to the long list of those to be represented in the Committee of Selection by the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire than under the proposal I sketched in my speech.
The biggest difference that I have with my hon. Friends the Members for Northampton, North and for Ludlow (Mr. Gill) is their belief that, were my motion to be passed, the power of the Executive would somehow increase. The weight of my argument is that, as a result of the motion, the position and power of the Whips would be enshrined in the procedures and Standing Orders of the House for the first time.
I believe strongly that what should determine the status of Members of the House for the purpose of its procedures is what they were elected as and what they declare themselves to be. I hope that, for reasons going well beyond today's debate, my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North would continue to wish to declare himself a Conservative.

Mr. Marlow: What the Opposition suggest in their amendment may do that, but nothing that my right hon. Friend has said or that I have said would enhance the power of the Whips.

Mr. Newton: We have a difference of view. I regard this as establishing the constitutional position of Members of Parliament in relation to the electorate and their own opinion of what their party affiliation is.
Lastly, if what the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) says about the Labour party's constitution is right—frankly, I thought that, with every word that was uttered by him, and by the hon. Members for Jarrow (Mr. Dixon) and for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor), they dug a deeper hole—it is inconsistent with the amendment that they and other Opposition Members have tabled, which says that, if anyone is denied the Whip, that person is effectively expelled from the parliamentary party and cannot be counted as belonging to that party. The letter that the hon. Member for Perry Barr sent to my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Sir M. Fox) says

that, in those circumstances, the Labour party would continue to claim them. There is a hopeless inconsistency there. I have no intention of discussing it further.
I commend my excellent motion to the House.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 285, Noes 327.

Division No. 33]
[6.00 pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Darling, Alistair


Adams, Mrs Irene
Davidson, Ian


Ainger, Nick
Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)


Allen, Graham
Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)


Alton, David
Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'dge H'I)


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Denham, John


Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)
Dixon, Don


Armstrong, Hilary
Dobson, Frank


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Donohoe, Brian H


Ashton, Joe
Dowd, Jim


Austin-Walker, John
Dunnachie, Jimmy


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth


Barnes, Harry
Eagle, Ms Angela


Barron, Kevin
Eastham, Ken


Battle, John
Enright, Derek


Bayley, Hugh
Etherington, Bill


Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret
Evans, John (St Helens N)


Beith, Rt Hon AJ
Ewing, Mrs Margaret


Bell, Stuart
Fatchett, Derek


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Field, Frank (Birkenhead)


Bennett, Andrew F
Fisher, Mark


Bermingham, Gerald
Flynn, Paul


Berry, Roger
Foster, Rt Hon Derek


Betts, Clive
Foster, Don (Bath)


Blair, Rt Hon Tony
Foulkes, George


Blunkett, David
Fraser, John


Boateng, Paul
Fyfe, Maria


Boyes, Roland
Galbraith, Sam


Bradley, Keith
Galloway, George


Brown, N (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)
Gapes, Mike


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
George, Bruce


Burden, Richard
Gerrard, Neil


Byers, Stephen
Godman, Dr Norman A


Cabom, Richard
Godsiff, Roger


Callaghan, Jim
Golding, Mrs Llin


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Gordon, Mildred


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Graham, Thomas


Campbell-Savours, D N
Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)


Canavan, Dennis
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Cann, Jamie
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)
Grocott, Bruce


Chidgey, David
Gunnell, John


Chisholm, Malcolm
Hain, Peter


Church, Judith
Hall, Mike


Clapham, Michael
Hanson, David


Clark, Dr David (South Shields)
Hardy, Peter


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Harman, Ms Harriet


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Harvey, Nick


Clelland, David
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Henderson, Doug


Coffey, Ann
Hendron, Dr Joe


Cohen, Harry
Heppell, John


Connarty, Michael
Hill, Keith (Streatham)


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Hinchliffe, David


Cook, Robin (Livingston)
Hodge, Margaret


Corbett, Robin
Hoey, Kate


Corbyn, Jeremy
Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)


Corston, Jean
Home Robertson, John


Cousins, Jim
Hood, Jimmy


Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)
Hoon, Geoffrey


Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


Dafis, Cynog
Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)


Dalyell, Tarn
Hoyle, Doug






Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
Mullin, Chris


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Murphy, Paul


Hughes, Roy (Newport E)
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
O'Brien, Mike (N W'kshire)


Hulton, John
O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)


lllsley, Eric
O'Hara, Edward


Ingram, Adam
Olner, Bill


Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)
O'Neill, Martin


Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Jamieson, David
Paisley, The Reverend Ian


Janner, Greville
Parry, Robert


Johnston, Sir Russell
Pearson Ian


Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)
Patchett, Terry


Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Mon)
Pickthall, Colin


Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)
Pike, Peter L


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)
Pope, Greg


Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Jowell, Tessa
Prentice, Bridget (LeW'm E)


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Keen, Alan
Prescott, Rt Hon John


Kennedy, Charles (Ross, C&S)
Primarolo, Dawn


Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)
Purchase, Ken


Khabra, Piara S
Quinn, Ms Joyce


Kilfoyle, Peter
Radios, Giles


Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil (Islwyn)
Randall, Stuart


Kirkwood, Archy
Raynsford, Nick


Lestor, Joan (Eccles)
Redmond, Martin


Lewis, Terry
Reid, Dr John


Liddell, Mrs Helen
Rendel, David


Litherland, Robert
Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)


Livingstone, Ken
Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)


Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Rooker, Jeff


Llwyd, Elfyn
Rooney, Terry


Loyden, Eddie
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Lynne, Ms Liz
Rowlands, Ted


McAllion, John
Ruddock, Joan


McAvoy, Thomas
Salmond, Alex


McCartney, Ian
Sedgemore, Brian


McCrea, Rev William
Sheerman, Barry


Macdonald, Calum
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


McFall, John
Simpson, Alan


McGrady, Eddie
Skinner, Dennis


McKelvey, William
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Mackinlay, Andrew
Smith, Chris (Isl'ton S & F'sbury)


McLeish, Henry
Smith, Uew (Blaenau Gwent)


Maclennan, Robert
Snape, Peter


McMaster, Gordon
Soley, Clive


McNamara, Kevin
Spearing, Nigel


MacShane, Denis
Spellar, John


McWilliam, John
Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)


Madden, Max
Steinberg, Gerry


Maddock, Diana
Stevenson, George


Mahon, Alice
Stott, Roger


Mallon, Seamus
Strang, Dr. Gavin


Mandelson, Peter
Straw, Jack


Marek, Dr John
Sutcliffe, Gerry


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Taylor, Mrs Arm (Dewsbury)


Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Martin, Michael J (Springburn)
Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)


Martlew, Eric
Timms, Stephen


Maxton, John
Tipping, Paddy


Meacher, Michael
Turner, Dennis


Meale, Alan
Tyler, Paul


Michael, Alun
Vaz, Keith


Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold


Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)
Walley, Joan


Milburn, Alan
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Miller, Andrew
Wareing, Robert N


Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)
Watson, Mike


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Welsh, Andrew


Morgan, Rhodri
Wicks, Malcolm


Mortey, Elliot
Wigjey, Dafydd


Morris, Estelle
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (SW'n W)


Morris, Rt Hon Alfred (Wy'nshawe)
Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)


Mowlam, Marjorie
Wilson, Brian


Mudie, George
Winnick, David





Wise, Audrey
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Worthington, Tony



Wray, Jimmy
Tellers for the Ayes:


Wright, Dr Tony
 Mrs. Barbara Roche and Mr. Joe Benton.




NOES


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Davies, Quentin (Stamford)


Altken, Rt Hon Jonathan
Davis, David (Boothferry)


Alexander, Richard
Day, Stephen


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Deva, Nirj Joseph


Allason, Rupert (Torbay)
Devlin, Tim


Amess, David
Dicks, Terry


Ancram, Michael
Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen


Arbuthnot, James
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Dover, Den


Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)
Duncan, Alan


Ashby, David
Duncan Smith, Iain


Aspinwall, Jack
Dunn, Bob


Atkins, Robert
Durant, Sir Anthony


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Dykes, Hugh


Baker, Rt Hon K (Mole Valley)
Eggar, Tim


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)
Elletson, Harold


Baldry, Tony
Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Banks, Matthew (Southport)
Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)


Batiste, Spencer
Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)


Beggs, Roy
Evans, Roger (Monmouth)


Bellingham, Henry
Evennett, David


Bendall, Vivian
Faber, David


Beresford, Sir Paul
Fabricant, Michael


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Fenner, Dame Peggy


Body, Sir Richard
Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Fishburn, Dudley


Booth, Hartley
Forman, Nigel


Boswell, Tim
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)


Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia
Forth, Eric


Bowden, Sir Andrew
Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman


Bowis, John
Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)


Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes
Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)


Brandreth, Gyles
Freeman, Rt Hon Roger


Brazier, Julian
French, Douglas


Bright, Sir Graham
Fry, Sir Peter


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Gale, Roger


Brown, M (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)
Gallie, Phil


Browning, Mrs. Angela
Gardiner, Sir George


Bruce, Ian (Dorset)
Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan


Budgen, Nicholas
Garnier, Edward


Burns, Simon
Gillan, Cheryl


Burt, Alistair
Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair


Butcher, John
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Butler, Peter
Gorst, Sir John


Butterfill, John
Grant, Sir A (Cambs SW)


Carlisle, John (Luton North)
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln)
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Carrington, Matthew
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)


Cash, William
Grylls, Sir Michael


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn


Chapman, Sydney
Hague, William


Churchill, Mr
Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archibald


clappison, James
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Hanley, Rt Hon Jeremy


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Hannam, Sir John


Coe, Sebastian
Hargreaves, Andrew


Colvin, Michael
Harris, David


Congdon, David
Haselhurst, Alan


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)
Hawkins, Nick


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Hawksley, Warren


Cope, Rt Hon Sir John
Hayes, Jerry


Cormack, Sir Patrick
Heald, Oliver


Couchman, James
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Cran, James
Hendry, Charles


Critchley, Julian
Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael


Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)
Hicks, Robert


Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)
Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence






Hill, James (Southampton Test)
Nelson, Anthony


Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)
Neubert, Sir Michael


Horam, John
Newton, Rt Hon Tony


Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Nicholls, Patrick


Howard, Rt Hon Michael
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)
Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)


Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)
Norris, Steve


Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)
Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley


Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)
Oppenheim, Phillip


Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)
Ottaway, Richard


Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)
Page, Richard


Hunter, Andrew
Paice, James


Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas
Patnick, Sir Irvine


Jack, Michael
Patten, Rt hon John


Jackson, Robert (Wantage)
Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Jenkin, Bernard
Pawsey, James


Jessel, Toby
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Pickles, Eric


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Porter, Barry (Wirral S)


Jones, Robert B (W Hertfdshr)
Porter, David (Waveney)


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Portillo, Rt Hon Michael


Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine
Powell, William (Corby)


Key, Robert
Rathbone, Tim


Kilfedder, Sir James
Redwood, Rt Hon John


King, Rt Hon Tom
Ronton, Rt Hon Tim


Kirkhope, Timothy
Richards, Rod


Knapman, Roger
Riddick, Graham


Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)
Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm


Knight, Greg (Derby N)
Robathan, Andrew


Knight Dame Jil (Bir'm E'st'n)
Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn


Knox, Sir David
Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)


Kynoch, George (Kincardine)
Robinson, Mark (Somerton)


Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)


Lamont, Rt Hon Norman
Ross, William (E Londonderry)


Lang, Rt Hon Ian
Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)


Lawrence, Sir Ivan
Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela


Legg, Barry
Ryder, Rt Hon Richard


Leigh, Edward
Sackville, Tom


Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark
Sainsbury, Rt Hon Sir Tim


Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)
Scott, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Lidington, David
Shaw, David (Dover)


Lightbown, David
Shaw, Sir Giles (pudsey)


Lilley, Rt Hon Peter
Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian


Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Lord, Michael
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


Luff, Peter
Shersby, Michael


Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Sims, Roger


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Skeet, Sir Trevor


MacKay, Andrew
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


Maclean, David
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


McLoughlin, Patrick
Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)


McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick
Soames, Nicholas


Madel, Sir David
Speed, Sir Keith


Maginnis, Ken
Spencer, Sir Derek


Maitland, Lady Olga
Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)


Major, Rt Hon John
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Malone, Gerald
Spink, Dr Robert


Mans, Keith
Spring, Richard


Marland, Paul
Sproat, Iain


Marlow, Tony
Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)


Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Steen, Anthony


Mates, Michael
Stephen, Michael


Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian
Stern, Michael


Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick
Stewart, Allan


Mellor, Rt Hon David
Streeter, Gary


Merchant, Piers
Sumberg, David


Mills, Iain
Sweeney, Walter


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Sykes, John


Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Moate, Sir Roger

Taylor, Rt Hon John D (Strgfd)


Molyneaux, Rt Hon James
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Monro, Sir Hector
Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Temple-Morris, Peter


Moss, Malcolm
Thomason, Roy


Needham, Rt Hon Richard
Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)





Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)
Waterson, Nigel


Thornton, Sir Malcolm
Watts, John


Thumham, Peter
Wells, Bowen


Townend, John (Bridlington)
Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John


Townsend, Cyril D (Bexl'yh'th)
Whitney, Ray


Tracey, Richard
Whittingdale, John


Tredinnick, David
Widdecombe, Ann


Trend, Michael
Wiggin, Sir Jerry


Trimble, David
Wilkinson, John


Trotter, Neville
Willetts, David



Wilshire David


Twinn, Dr Ian
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Vaughan, Sir Gerard
Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)


Viggers, Peter
Wolfson, Mark


Waldegrave, Rt Hon Wiliam
Wood, Timothy


Walden, George
Yeo, Tim


Walker, A Cecil (Belfast N)
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Walker, Bill (N Tayside)



Waller, Gary
Tellers for the Noes:


Ward, John
Mr Derek Conway and Mr Michael Bates.


Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

Question accordingly negatived.

Main question put:—

The House divided: Ayes 325, Noes 288.

Division No. 34]
[6.17 pm


AYES


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Carlisle, John (Luton North)


Aitken, Rt Hon Jonathan
Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln)


Alexander, Richard
Carrington, Matthew


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Cash, William


Allason, Rupert (Torbay)
Channon, Rt Hon Paul


Amess, David
Chapman, Sydney


Ancram, Michael
Churchill, Mr


Arbuthnot, James
Clappison, James


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)


Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)
Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey


Ashby, David
Coe, Sebastian


Aspinwall, Jack
Colvin, Michael


Atkins, Robert
Congdon, David


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)


Baker, Rt Hon K (Mole Valley)
Coombs, Simon (Swindon)


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)
Cope, Rt Hon Sir John


Baldry, Tony
Cormack, Sir Patrick


Banks, Matthew (Southport)
Couchman, James



Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Cran, James


Batiste, Spencer
Critchley, Julian


Beggs, Roy
Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)


Bellingham, Henry
Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)


Bendall, Vivian
Davies, Quentin (Stamford)


Beresford, Sir Paul
Davis, David (Boothferry)


Body, Sir Richard
Day, Stephen


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Deva, Nirj Joseph


Booth, Hartley
Devlin, Tim


Boswell, Tim
Dicks, Terry


Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)
Dorreil, Rt Hon Stephen


Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Bowden, Sir Andrew
Dover, Den


Bowis, John
Duncan, Alan


Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes
Duncan Smith, Iain


Brandreth, Gyles
Dunn, Bob


Brazier, Julian
Durant, Sir Anthony


Bright, Sir Graham
Dykes, Hugh


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Eggar, Tim


Brown, M (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)
Elletson, Harold


Browning, Mrs. Angela
Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Bruce, Ian (Dorset)
Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)


Budgen, Nicholas
Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)


Burns, Simon
Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)


Burt, Alistair
Evans, Roger (Monmouth)


Butcher, John
Evennett, David


Butler, Peter
Faber, David


Butterfill, John
Fabricant, Michael






Fenner, Dame Peggy
Kynoch, George (Kincardine)


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Lait, Mrs Jacqui


Fishburn, Dudley
Lamont, Rt Hon Norman


Forman, Nigel
Lang, Rt Hon Ian


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Lawrence, Sir Ivan


Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)
Legg, Barry


Forth, Eric
Leigh, Edward


Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman
Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark


Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)
Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)


Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)
Lidington, David


Freeman, Rt Hon Roger
Lightbown, David


French, Douglas
Lilley, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Fry, Sir Peter
Lloyd, Rt Hon Peter (Fareham)


Gale, Roger
Lord, Michael


Gallie, Phil
Luff, Peter


Gardiner, Sir George
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Garnier, Edward
MacKay, Andrew


Gillan, Cheryl
Maclean, David


Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair
McLoughlin, Patrick


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick


Gorst, Sir John
Madel, Sir David


Grant, Sir A (Cambs SW)
Magimis, Ken


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Maitland, Lady Olga


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Major, Rt Hon John


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)
Malone, Gerald


Grylls, Sir Michael
Mans, Keith


Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn
Marland, Paul


Hague, William
Marshall, John (Hendon S)


Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archibald
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Mates, Michael


Hanley, Rt Hon Jeremy
Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian


Hannam, Sir John
Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick


Hargreaves, Andrew
Meltor, Rt Hon David


Harris, David
Merchant, Piers


Haselhurst, Alan
Mills, Iain


Hawkins, Nick
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Hawksley, Warren
Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)


Hayes, Jerry
Moate, Sir Roger


Heald, Oliver
Molyneaux, Rt Hon James


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Monro, Sir Hector


Hendry, Charles
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael
Moss, Malcolm


Hicks, Robert
Needham, Rt Hon Richard


Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence
Nelson, Anthony


Hill, James (Southampton Test)
Neubert, Sir Michael


Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)
Newton, Rt Hon Tony


Horam, John
Nichols, Patrick


Hordem, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Howard, Rt Hon Michael
Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)


Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)
Norris, Steve


Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)
Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley


Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)
Oppenheim, Philip


Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)
Ottaway, Richard


Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)
Page, Richard


Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)
Paice, James


Hunter, Andrew
Patntek, Sir Irvine


Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas
Patten, Rt Hon John


Jack, Michael
Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Jackson, Robert (Wantage)
Pawsey, James


Jenkin, Bernard
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Jessel, Toby
Pickles, Eric


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Porter, Barry (Wirral S)


Jones, Gwifym (Cardiff N)
Porter, David (Waveney)


Jones, Robert B (W Hertfdshr)
Portillo, Rt Hon Michael


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Powel, William (Corby)


Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine
Rathbone, Tim


Key, Robert
Redwood, Rt Hon John


Kilfedder, Sir James
Ronton, Rt Hon Tim


King, Rt Hon Tom
Richards, Rod


Kirkhope, Timothy
Riddick, Graham


Knapman, Roger
RHkind, Rt Hon Malcolm


Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)
Robatnan, Andrew


Knight, Greg (Derby N)
Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn


Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)
Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)


Knox, Sir David
Robinson, Mark (Somerton)





Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)
Thomason, Roy


Ross, William (E Londonderry)
Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)


Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela
Thornton, Sir Malcolm


Ryder, Rt Hon Richard
Thurnham, Peter


Sackville, Tom
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Sainsbury, Rt Hon Sir Tim
Townsend, Cyril D (Bexl'yh'th)


Scott, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Tracey, Richard


Shaw, David (Dover)
Tredinnick, David


Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)
Trend, Michael


Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian
Trimble, David


Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Trotter, Neville


Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)
Twirm, Dr Ian


Shersby, Michael
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Sims, Roger
Viggers, Peter


Skeet, Sir Trevor
Waldegrave, Rt Hon William


Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)
Walden, George


Smith Tim (Beaconsfield)
Walker, A Cecil (Belfast N)


Smyth, Rev Martjn (Belfast S)
Walker, Bil (N Tayside)



Waller, Gary


Soarnes, Nicholas
Ward, John


Speed, Sir Keith
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Spencer, Sir Derek



Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)
Waterson, Nigel


Spicer Michael (S Worcs)
Watts, John



Wells, Bowen


Spink, Dr Robert
Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John


Spring, Richard
Whitney, Ray


Sproat, Iain
Whittingdale, John


Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)
Widdecombe, Ann


Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John
Wiggin, Sir Jerry


Steen, Anthony
Wilkinson, John


Stephen, Michael
Willetts, David


Stem, Michael
Wilshire, David


Stewart, Alan
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Streeter, Gary
Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)


Sumberg, David
Wolfson, Mark


Sweeney, Walter
Wood, Timothy


Sykes, John
Yeo, Tim


Taylor, Ian (Esher)
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Taylor, Rt Hon John D (Strgfd)



Taylor, John M (Sollhull)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)
Mr. Derek Conway and Mr. Michael Bates.


Temple





NOES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Brown, N (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)


Adams, Mrs Irene
Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)


Ainger, Nick
Burden, Richard


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Byers, Stephen


Allen, Graham
Caborn, Richard


Alton, David
Callaghan, Jim


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)


Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)
Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)


Armstrong, Hilary
Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Campbell-Savours, D N


Ashton, Joe
Canavan, Dennis


Austin-Walker, John
Cann, Jamie


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)


Barnes, Harry
Chidgey, David


Barron, Kevin
Chisholm, Malcolm


Battle, John
Church, Judith


Bayley, Hugh
Clapham, Michael


Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret
Clark, Dr David (South Shields)


Berth, Rt Hon A J
Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)


Bel, Stuart
Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Clelland, David


Bennett, Andrew F
Clwyd, Mrs Ann


Bermingham, Gerald

Coffey, Ann


Berry, Roger
Cohen, Harry


Betts, Clive
Connarty, Michael


Blair, Rt Hon Tony
Cook, Frank (Stockton N)


Blunkett, David
Cook, Robin (Livingston)


Boateng, Paul
Corbett, Robin


Boyes, Roland
Corbyn, Jeremy


Bradley, Keith
Corston, Jean


Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)
Cousins, Jim






Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)
Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)


Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John
Jackson, Helen (Shefld, H)


Dafis, Cynog
Jamieson, David


Dalyell, Tam
Janner, Greville


Darling, Alistair
Johnston, Sir Russell


Davidson, Ian
Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)


Oavies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)
Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Mon)


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Jones, Lyme (B'ham S O)


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
Jones, Martyn (Ctwyd, SW)


Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'dge H'I)
Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)


Denham, John
Jowell, Tessa


Dewar, Donald
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Dixon, Don
Keen, Alan


Dobson, Frank
Kennedy, Charles (Ross, C&S)


Donohoe, Brian H
Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)


Dowd, Jim
Khabra, Piara S


Dunnachie, Jimmy
Wlfoyle, Peter


Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
kinnock, Rt Hon Neil (Islwyn)


Eagle, Ms Angela
Kirkwood, Archy


Eastham, Ken
Lestor, Joan (Eccles)


Enright, Derek
Lewis, Terry


Etherington, Bill
Liddell, Mrs Helen


Evans, John (St Helens N)
Litherland, Robert


Ewing, Mrs Margaret
Livingstone, Ken


Fatchett, Derek
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Field, Frank (Biikenhead)
Llwyd, Elfyn


Fisher, Mark
Loyden, Eddie


Fryrm, Paul
Lynne, Ms Liz


Foster, Rt Hon Derek
McAllion, John


Foster, Don (Bath)
McAvoy, Thomas


Foulkes, George
McCartney, Ian


Fraser, John
McCrea, Rev William


Fyfe, Maria
Macdonald, Calum


Galbraith, Sam
McFall, John


Galloway, George
McGrady, Eddie


Gapes, Mike
McKelvey, William


George, Bruce
Mackinlay, Andrew


Gerrard, Neil
McLeish, Henry


Godman, Dr Norman A
Maclennan, Robert


Godsiff, Roger
McMaster, Gordon


Golding, Mrs Llin
McNamara, Kevin


Gordon, Mildred
MacShane, Denis


Graham, Thomas
McWilliam, John


Grant Bernie (Tottenham)
Madden, Max


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Maddock, Diana


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Mahon, Alice


Grocott, Bruce
Mallon, Seamus


Gunnell, John
Mandelson, Peter


Hain, Peter
Marek, Dr John


Hall, Mike
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Hanson, David
Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)


Hardy, Peter
Martin, Michael J (Springburn)


Harman, Ms Harriet
Martlew, Eric


Harvey, Nick
Maxton, John


Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Meacher, Michael


Henderson, Doug
Meale, Alan


Hendron, Dr Joe
Michael, Alun


Heppell, John
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Hill, Keith (Streatham)
Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)


Hinchliffe, David
Milbum, Alan


Hodge, Margaret
Miller, Andrew


Hoey, Kate
Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)


Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Home Robertson, John
Morgan, Rhodri


Hood, Jimmy
Morley, Elliot


Hoon, Geoffrey
Morris, Rt Hon Alfred (Wy'nshawe)


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)


Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)
Mowlam, Marjorie


Hoyle, Doug
Mudie, George


Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
Mullin, Chris


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Murphy, Paul


Hughes, Roy (Newport E)
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
O'Brien, Mike (N W'kshire)


Hutton.John
O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)


lllsley, Eric
O'Hara, Edward


Ingram, Adam
Olner.Bill





O'Neill, Martin
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Snape, Peter


Paisley, The Reverend Ian
Soley.clive


Parry, Robert
Spearing, Nigel


Patchett Terry
Spellar, John


Pearson, Ian
Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)


Pendry, Tom
Steinberg, Gerry


Pickthall, Colin
Stevenson, George


Pike, Peter L
Stott, Roger


Pope, Greg
Strang, Dr. Gavin


Powel, Ray (Ogmore)
Straw, Jack


Prentice, Bridget (Lew'm E)
Sutcliffe, Gerry


Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Prescott, Rt Hon John
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Primarolo, Dawn
Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)


Purchase, Ken
Timms, Stephen


Quin, Ms Joyce
Tipping, Paddy


Radice, Giles
Turner, Dennis


Randall, Stuart
Tyler, Paul


Raynsford, Nick
Vaz, Keith


Redmond, Martin
Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold


Reid, Dr John
Walley, Joan


Rendel, David
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Robertson, George (Hamilton)
Wareing, Robert N



Watson, Mike


Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)
Welsh, Andrew


Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)
Wicks, Malcolm


Rooker, Jeff
Wigley, Dafydd


Rooney, Terry
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (SW'n W)


Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)
Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)


Rowlands, Ted
Winnick, David


Ruddock, Joan
Wise, Audrey


Salmond, Alex
Worthington, Tony


Sedgemore, Brian
Wray, Jimmy


Sheerman, Barry
Wright, Dr Tony


Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Simpson, Alan



Skinner, Dennis
Tellers for the Noes:


Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)
Mrs. Barbara Roche and Mr. Joe Benton.


Smith, Chris (Isl'ton S & F'sbury)

Questions accordingly agreed to.

Resolved,
That, unless and until the party which achieved an overall majority of Members elected at the preceding general election loses that majority either as a result of by-elections or through the secession of Members to another party the Committee of Selection shall interpret paragraph (2) of Standing Order No. 86 (Nomination of standing committees) in such a way as to give that party a majority on any standing committee.

Orders of the Day — Cleveland

Madam Speaker: Before we come to the motion on local government, I should inform the House that I have limited Back-Bench speeches during the debate to 10 minutes. Of course that does not include the two Front Benches, nor does it include the spokesman for the third party.

The Minister for Local Government, Housing and Urban Regeneration (Mr. David Curry): I beg to move,
That the draft Cleveland (Structural Change) Order 1994, which was laid before the House on 8th December, be approved.
The Local Government Commission published its final recommendations for Cleveland on 8 November 1993 and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced his decision on 18 January 1994.
We agree with the commission that more effective and convenient local government in Cleveland will best be achieved by establishing four unitary authorities on the boundaries of the existing borough councils of Middlesbrough, Hartlepool, Stockton-on-Tees and Langbaurgh-on-Tees—the latter to be named Redcar and Cleveland—and that that will reflect the interests and identities of local people.
It is important to emphasise what the work and recommendations of the Local Government Commission are intended to achieve—which is not to pass judgment on the merits or otherwise of individual councils. The policy guidance to the commission contains the message again and again that its job is to explore whether better structures for local government are available.
Not all hon. Gentlemen have felt themselves bound by the same constraints. The hon. Member for Stockton, North (Mr. Cook) has been fierce in his defence of Cleveland council. The hon. Members for Middlesbrough (Mr. Bell) and for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson) have been fierce in their denunciation of Cleveland council. The task of reconciling their views is not for me, but is one, I assume, for the Labour Whips, among whose number is, was or perhaps is no longer to be the hon. Member for Hartlepool—unless the Labour party has invented a new form of the Silken Whip, which strikes but does not bite. I remain to be enlightened on that particular phenomenon.

Mr. Gary Streeter: Can my hon. Friend clarify the position? The hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson) spoke out strongly in support of the order in the House on 29 June 1994 and in other places, yet we understand from his local press that he now proposes either to vote against or to abstain on the motion. How can that be?

Mr. Curry: My hon. Friend draws my attention to the strong representations made by the hon. Members for Hartlepool and for Middlesbrough. It is a subject that raises strong passions which I fully understand. It is for me to look at the commission's recommendations in the light of the functioning and the structures of local government. Of course, hon. Gentlemen will reconcile their views with those of their hon. Friends during the debate and the voting.
Article 3 gives effect to the Local Government Commission's main recommendations for local government structure in Cleveland and provides for

reorganisation on 1 April 1996. On that date, Cleveland county council will be wound up and functions and powers will be transferred to the four borough authorities.
The original intention was for reorganisation from 1 April 1995; however, the county council's judicial review application, which was turned down by the High Court in June, made it impossible to stick to that timetable without putting at risk smooth transition and proper provision of essential services.
Although there are no proceedings currently before the courts, Cleveland county council has applied for leave to appeal by means of an oral hearing before the Court of Appeal. The date of that hearing has not yet been set. Before the order was laid, we carefully considered whether that outstanding request for leave to appeal should prevent laying and debating the order, but we concluded that it should not. If Parliament approves the draft order, we shall, of course, take stock of the position on legal proceedings before the order is made.
The Local Government Commission recommended in its final report on Cleveland and Durham that, for ceremonial and related purposes, the county area of Cleveland should be divided between County Durham and Yorkshire. Although we have accepted that proposal in principle, we shall not be taking a final decision until we have reached conclusions on the future structure of local government in County Durham and North Yorkshire. The present order does not address that issue.
Having considered local views, we are providing for all-out elections to all four borough councils, including Hartlepool, which normally elects by thirds, in May 1995. The councillors elected then will have a fresh mandate from the people of Cleveland to plan for change, and then to take over responsibility for running all local authority services from the following April.
To ensure a smooth transition and to safeguard essential services, the five Cleveland authorities will be given extra duties and powers to prepare for the reorganisation. The order draws a distinction between what the successor authorities can do before and after the elections in May. They should be able to prepare for reorganisation from the time the order is made, but we strongly believe that the decisions that will determine the outlook and culture of the successor authorities, along with appointments of chief officers, should be taken after the elections in May by the councillors who are elected with the mandate for the change in functions.
There will be a duty on all five existing councils to co-operate in implementing reorganisation. The borough councils will also have access to information which they need and will be able to make the necessary preparations, including budget setting and appointing staff, in advance of the transfer and exercise of the functions which they will inherit from 1 April 1996. The new authorities will also be required to consider whether particular functions can best be carried out from voluntary joint arrangements.
The order also provides for a number of other matters on which the Local Government Commission made recommendations or which result from reorganisation. It paves the way for a combined fire authority for Cleveland, which will be created by a separate order under the Fire Services Act 1947, to be made by my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary. It also provides for representatives of the new unitary authorities to replace the county council's nominees on the Cleveland police authority from 1 October 1995 for certain purposes so that




they can be involved in the decision on the 1996–97 budget and policing plans. The county council's representatives will stay on the authority for all other purposes until the county council is abolished in the following April. The order vests the county council's superannuation fund in Middlesbrough borough council, which is also designated for the purposes of certain financial regulations.
As unitary authorities, the four Cleveland boroughs will be responsible for both strategic and local land use planning for their areas. We are determined that, wherever there is reorganisation, there should be adequate arrangements for strategic planning. In the case of Cleveland, the commission proposed that the four unitary authorities should maintain separate local plans but work together on a joint structure plan; we have accepted that recommendation.
The order gives effect to the recommendation by transferring the county's strategic planning responsibilities to the four borough councils, which can then make the necessary voluntary arrangements for joint working on the structure plan. We anticipate that the authorities in Cleveland will establish satisfactory arrangements, and are much encouraged by the proposals that they have published for joint work on strategic planning for the Tees valley.
Finally, the order implements the commission's recommendation that the borough of Langbaurgh-on-Tees be renamed Redcar and Cleveland, and provides for representatives of that council to take the place of the county council on the North York Moors national park committee. The Government, and everyone concerned with local government in Cleveland, must now make the reorganisation a success.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: So far, the Minister has not mentioned those who work for the local authorities involved. Can he assure us that, following negotiations with local trade unions, not one job will be lost as a result of the reorganisation?

Mr. Curry: The whole purpose of electing new councils in all-out elections in May is to give those councils responsibility for negotiating the introduction of unitary councils. That will include conditions of employment. The terms and conditions that are available have been made perfectly clear. The hon. Gentleman left his intervention until a rather late stage, but I should have felt bereft had he not made it.

Mr. Colin Shepherd: Those of us with an interest in the creation of unitary authorities in other parts of the country are listening carefully to my hon. Friend's remarks about arrangements for Cleveland, which may well represent a pilot scheme. Is he satisfied that the period of 12 months allowed for a shadow authority to operate is long enough, given the new ground that is being broken? Previously, we were bringing authorities together to form larger authorities; we are now splitting them into smaller ones. A learning curve must be negotiated.

Mr. Curry: Without anticipating the outcome of deliberations about Hereford and Worcester, I can say that I consider that period sufficient. I have undertaken that, wherever possible, we will elect shadow authorities that will be responsible for preparing the new ground, and will

have a full year in which to do so. The process must be completed as quickly as can sensibly be arranged. I doubt that many people would welcome its protraction, given the obvious uncertainties: people want to know where they stand on such matters as employment, and I believe that the time scale is about right for the delivery of the responsibilities involved.

Mr. Skinner: So there are no job guarantees?

Mr. Curry: The hon. Gentleman intervenes from a sedentary position. I have already replied to his question.

Mr. Skinner: What guarantees will the Government give that not a single worker currently employed in the area will lose his job as a result of the reorganisation on which the Government are insisting?

Mr. Curry: I always find the hon. Gentleman's interventions intriguing. We are discussing the reorganisation of a council that happens to be under Labour control, which will devolve to four unitary authorities whose districts are also under Labour control. If the Labour party cannot sort out its policies without running scared in front of the unions whose heavy hand appears to be on the process, it should not assume that responsibility. I wish to give the Labour councils that responsibility, however, because it is their job: that is why we are giving them a period of "shadow working".

Mr. John Sykes: Will my hon. Friend ignore the frantic efforts of Opposition Members with vested interests in keeping the Cleveland gravy train on the rails? Is he aware that millions of people in Yorkshire have been living for the day that heralded the abolition of a mythical county—and that of Humberside—so that Yorkshire can stretch from the Humber to the Tees as it did for a thousand years? Will he also consider my proposal to restore the Yorkshire ridings, which were a traditional and honourable feature of our county for a thousand years?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): Order. This is a short debate, and interventions should be brief and to the point. Hon. Members should not make speeches.

Mr. Curry: My hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough (Mr. Sykes) was undoubtedly referring to my remarks about the possible ceremonial functions to be bestowed on the unitary authorities. Some, of course, used to belong to the historical Yorkshire, just as some belonged to the historical Durham. We shall have to consult when the time comes to decide which is the best designation.

Mr. Clive Betts: In response to my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), the Minister mentioned local authorities' freedom to determine the operation of service conditions and staff structures. To do that, they will need powers. What powers will they have in the event of detriment, when employees suffer a loss of service conditions, and what will happen when direct service organisations are transferred? I do not think that the Minister has granted any such powers yet or has announced his intentions.

Mr. Curry: I am delighted that the Trappist silence that overwhelmed Labour Members at the beginning of the debate appears to have been succeeded by more active participation.
We are currently consulting on a scheme to deal with detriment, and the outcome will depend on the result of that consultation. As for the hon. Gentleman's other question, he will know that when a DSO is transferred, its current responsibility will devolve to the new authorities. We expect successor authorities either to maintain or to review existing arrangements as the law prescribes.

Mr. John Gunnell: The Minister said that it would be up to the Labour party to sort out the employment issues, but surely he has considerable control over the position. As matters stand, he is responsible for determining budgets both for the current Cleveland authority in its final year and for the districts. Will those budgets permit the authorities to make the decisions that my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) wants to be made?
I should like to ask another question—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have already pointed out that this is a short debate, and that interventions should be brief and to the point. Let me add that long interventions from hon. Members who have not put their names down to make speeches will deprive others—probably including Cleveland Members—of the opportunity to speak.

Mr. Curry:: I have been hovering on the brink of my final sentence for about eight interventions. The answer to the intervention of the hon. Member for Morley and Leeds, South (Mr. Gunnell) is as follows: the successor authorities will receive credit approvals and repayments will be deferred for four years to enable them to make the financial arrangements that are necessary for them to move from the present structure to the new one.

Mr. Paddy Tipping: The Minister has yet to mention the customers—the "consumers" of council services. There are bound to be transitional difficulties. Is he confident that the long-term gains will outweigh the short-term costs? If so, how can he be so confident?

Mr. Curry: Yes, I am confident. We required the commission to present its estimate of the costs; it estimates the transitional costs to be between £13 million and £18 million, and the annual savings to be between £6 million and £11 million. The savings will clearly recur year on year.
Over the past year, there has been considerable uncertainty for all concerned in local government, but I have no doubt that the local authorities in Cleveland have the ability to make a success of the new local government structure. I therefore commend the order to the House.

Mr. Frank Dobson: This draft order from the current Tory Government proposes abolishing the Cleveland county council which was set up by a previous Tory Government. I should like to make it clear that we will oppose the order. It is a product of the local government review, a review conceived in malice towards a limited number of Labour county councils. Since its conception, it has been conducted in confusion and litigation.
The outcome of the review, in so far as we can see it, does not resemble what the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) said when he introduced it:

We know that most local authorities want unitary status and we believe that such status will provide a better structure for the future in most areas."—[Official Report, 20 January 1992; Vol. 232, c. 37.]
The commission has not recommended unitary status for most areas. Indeed, a rough count suggests that, of the 296 shire county districts at the start of the process, 230 or more will survive as shire county districts—80 per cent.—and will not be changed or become unitary authorities.
Things have not turned out as the right hon. Member for Henley predicted. The review has turned out exactly as the Labour party predicted, however. One of my predecessors pointed out in the debate that it looked as though the commission would roam around the countryside guided by the whim of the Secretary of State, that the recommendations would be subject to the whim of the Secretary of State and that they would leave local government in chaos—and so it has turned out. After two years of wrangling, vast expense and court cases, we do not have a sensible set of propositions from the review. After two years of councillors and officials quite understandably either promoting change or defending the status quo, we do not have a sensible set of measures. Throughout the whole period, those councillors, including Tory councillors, have been distracted from their real tasks of trying to provide decent services for local people.
It would be impossible for any Minister to convince anyone with a grain of sense that the proposals reflect rhyme or reason. The process should have been clear, consistent and straightforward. In other words, rather like those of the Boundary Commission, technically at least the proceedings of the review should have been beyond reproach, but they have not been. They are a shambles. The Government have said that they refuse to await all the recommendations for all the counties before they start pushing through individual orders such as this one, which is the second such order. That is because they want to hide away the inconsistency of the propositions—

Mr. Curry: rose—

Mr. Dobson: I do not want to give way, since large numbers of hon. Members from the area—

Hon. Members: Give way.

Mr. Curry: I seek clarification. I know that the hon. Member for Stockton, North (Mr. Cook) said that he wanted no orders to be placed before Parliament until all the orders could be placed before it. Now the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) appears to be agreeing with him. Is that Labour party policy?

Mr. Dobson: We have always made it clear that we believe that all the recommendations should be revealed to the House before it starts considering individual recommendations. The Government are proceeding with individual recommendations before everything is known because they want to distract attention from the contradictions in the propositions. For instance, Rutland, with a population of 33,000, is to become a fully independent unitary authority, while Norwich, Ipswich and Exeter, ancient cities which used to be county boroughs, and with populations of more than 100,000, are not to have unitary status. Blackburn, with 139,000 people, will not get it; nor will Warrington and Northampton, with populations of more than 180,000. We


regard the whole outcome as a shambles, which is why we think that the House should be able to see all the proposals before we proceed to vote through any of them.
The Secretary of State will not even guarantee that he will put all the final recommendations of the review commission to the House. In refusing to do so, he is breaking the undertaking given by the right hon. Member for Henley, who said that they would be put before the House. In the absence of the Secretary of State, will the Minister guarantee that the Government will put to the House all the commission's final recommendations?

Mr. Curry: The hon. Gentleman clearly does not understand the process. He has just given us a great spiel about how Exeter, Norwich, Ipswich, and so on, will not have this status, but the Government have not yet reached conclusions on the commission's recommendations for their status. The commission has the responsibility to make recommendations; the Government have the responsibility to consult on them and then to put their recommendations before the House. I certainly give no guarantee that the recommendations, in the form in which they emerge from the commission, will necessarily be put before the House. The legislation does not provide for that and the Government would be running away from their responsibilities if they gave such an undertaking.

Mr. Dobson: That is confirmation, then, that these matters will be decided at the whim of the Secretary of State. God knows, I do not like anybody's whims, but the whims of the present Secretary of State are mindless.

Mr. Curry: If the Secretary of State concluded that it would be right to invite the commission to look again at the case of Lancashire, would the hon. Gentleman's predecessor be pleased or displeased by that decision?

Mr. Dobson: The Minister seems to be deaf as well as stupid. He failed to notice that I referred to the "final" recommendations of the commission. If the Secretary of State refers a case back to the commission and the commission comes back with truly final recommendations, will the Minister put them before the House? That is what I am asking him, and he is refusing to reply, because he wants to leave it to the whim of the Secretary of State. He has now confirmed that it will be left to the whim of the Secretary of State.
Next, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) has said, we are concerned that there should be proper protection for the staff who are affected by these changes, both those who are transferred and those who, if they are not transferred, should get compensation. They do not ask for anything enormous or unusual. All they want are the terms and conditions that applied to staff when the metropolitan counties were abolished in 1986. The Secretary of State will not even concede those terms. Presumably, he wants the epitaph on his tombstone to read, "Even meaner than Thatcher".
The compensation order which we are to debate later does not provide for the 84 weeks' compensation that applied in 1986; it provides for only 66 weeks. Nor does it provide for mandatory compensation for staff over 50 years of age—the very people who would really appreciate a guarantee of mandatory compensation.
What has changed since 1986? For one thing, it is harder to get a job now than it was then. There has also been a change to do with compensation, however. Since 1986, the Government have introduced ministerial severance pay, providing Ministers with compensation when they return to the Back Benches. Although they will still have their Members' pay and can get jobs in the City, the Government provide them with compensation as well. That is entirely typical of this Government: harsh treatment of people who lose their jobs through no fault of their own, and generous treatment for themselves when they lose their jobs by virtue of incompetence, venality or adultery.
The Government should reconsider and, at the very least, come up with conditions for the staff that are as good as the ones they were prepared to concede in 1986. This matter will be dealt with at greater length when we come to the compensation order.
The process of the review should have been beyond reproach. It should have been dealt with in a quasi-judicial way. Cleveland was not dealt with like that; it has been more like a kangaroo court. The Prime Minister, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the President of the Board of Trade and the Secretary of State himself have all denounced Cleveland in immoderate terms, at Tory party conferences, in the House and all over the place.
Even more important, when we talk about proper standards of conduct in public life, I think that all hon. Members would agree that the chairman of the Local Government Commission should behave in a quasi-judicial manner. We cannot expect the Secretary of State to do so. Pseudo-pontifically, he is about as near as he can get to it. Unfortunately, the chairman of the commission was not so acting when, on 19 October 1993, he wrote to the Secretary of State as follows:
It will also be important that the Commission and the Government jointly have some early wins in the difficult initial stages of the review. There is likely to be general acceptance of our recommendations for Avon, Cleveland and Humberside. It would be good to have these accepted while you sort out those areas in which, so far, support for unitary structures is limited and there is substantial opposition to the change.
Public servants who are supposed to carry out their duties in a quasi-judicial manner should not be talking about "early wins" in relation to councils.
The consultation process in Cleveland has been inferior to and different from the process that has been followed in other counties and was criticised by the High Court. Estimates of costs produced by the commission have been at variance with estimates produced elsewhere. Estimates of costs were revised during the consultation procedures, but no one went back to consult the people who had already been consulted.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stockton, North (Mr. Cook) was promised that representations received would be made available. Until he pressed for that, nothing was done. He was eventually supplied with a summary. The Government suddenly changed their tune and announced that they would not make documents available. They said that if someone had made representations, he or she might want them regarded as confidential. As I understand it, nearly all the representations made have been suppressed and are not available.
The principle should be reversed. Unless a member of the public says, "I wish my representations to be


confidential," we might assume that in a public matter of this sort they should be made available to the public. People expect them to be made public.

Mr. Frank Cook: Several individuals who made representations to the Secretary of State have written to me to complain. They have told me that they have written to the Secretary of State asking him to release their letters. As yet, none has been forthcoming.

Mr. Dobson: What my hon. Friend says does not surprise me in the least. There is another example. Hon. Members will remember that the Secretary of State spent about £250,000 to produce a publicity leaflet on London shortly before the London elections. That was supposed to be a consultation exercise. When requests were made for the basic, raw data so that independents could scrutinise the responses, we were told that the forms were completed in confidence and, therefore, could not be released. That is typical.
The draft order is unacceptable to us because the procedures involved have been unfair, unreasonable and chaotic. We believe that the propositions before us are inconsistent with other recommendations. We should not proceed with the orders referred to in the Order Paper until we have guarantees that all the associated orders will be seen by the House and put to the House. We shall not support the order until the Government produce decent guarantees for the staff involved, at least on the lines of those that were agreed in 1986. That is why we shall vote against the draft order.

Mr. Tim Devlin: I was interested in what the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) said about taking comfort from what the High Court judgment had to say about the way in which the consultation process had been carried out. I draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to a speech by the hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. Bell). He said:
It must have been very cold comfort indeed, since on all the counts put forward by Cleveland county council, it lost. The council said that the decision of the Local Government Commission and the Government was unreasonable. It lost. It said that the commission had misconstrued the policy guidance on policy arrangements. It lost. It said that there had been a lack of proper consultation. It lost. It said that the Secretary of State should have referred back Cleveland, as he referred Durham back. It lost. It said that it was unfair for Durham to benefit from the 1993 guidance, but not Cleveland. It lost on that, too. The court rightly pointed out that the four-district option was supported by the majority of the local Members of Parliament. It was also supported by an opinion poll and by direct responses.
The hon. Member for Middlesbrough quoted directly from the learned judge, who said:
'If this amounts to a submission that democracy is not a panacea for all ills, it sounds odd coming from a county council.'"—[Official Report, 7 July 1994; Vol. 246, c. 556–57.]
There seem to be discrepancies in what some Opposition Front-Bench spokesmen are saying.
The order was tabled to provide local services in a cost-effective way, with local accountability of identifiable representatives, while drawing on traditional loyalties. The reason for Cleveland being first through the mill of the House is that there is no natural local affinity for the county, which was drawn up in 1974. It was constituted for administrative convenience and not to command local loyalty.
Indeed, not even Cleveland county council supported the retention of the council. It supported a Teesside authority and was backed by 12.5 per cent. of the population who were consulted in a local poll. The House should know that 75 per cent. of those consulted in a MORI poll agreed with the principle of a single-tier authority. Nearly half those who agreed with that principle—48 per cent.—supported the four unitary authorities of Stockton, Middlesbrough, Langbaurgh and Hartlepool.
Hartlepool county council felt so strongly about the matter that about 90 per cent. of residents nominated the borough as the place in which they felt at home and which they would prefer to see delivering their local services. That strength of feeling has come through in every poll and in the many submissions to the Local Government Commission.
Cleveland county council recognised the strength of that feeling in its submission. It called for Hartlepool, the smallest of the four boroughs, to be carved out as a separate unit from its proposed Teesside authority.
The hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson) has not missed an opportunity to press for the proposals set out in the local government review to be implemented. In June last year, he asked my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House whether he accepted
that there will be great disappointment among my constituents that the order implementing the Government's proposals for the reorganisation of local government in Cleveland does not feature in next week's business?"—[Official Report, 16 June 1994; Vol. 244, c. 759.]
Later in June, he was pressing my hon. Friend the Minister with responsibilities for these matters, saying:
Will the Minister reaffirm the Government's strong determination to create four unitary district-based councils in the present county of Cleveland? In addition to the Local Government Commission, the overwhelming majority of the public, most local Members of Parliament, the Government themselves and now the High Court, too, support his opinion. Only the House of Commons has so far not been asked to express a view".—[Official Report, 29 June 1994; Vol. 245, c. 794.]
It is strange indeed, as the editorial in last night's edition of The Mail of Hartlepool remarked—the hon. Member for Hartlepool is an Opposition Whip and is drumming up support among his colleagues to defeat the motion—
And if Labour with the help of Tory rebels succeeds in blocking the change … will the town ever forgive him?
The editor put it so well, and the answer is, probably not. That is why I am given to understand that the hon. Gentleman may resign his post to stay true to his constituents. As my hon. Friend the Member for Langbaurgh (Mr. Bates) and I will tell him, all great political careers involve at least one resignation.
Why is Labour opposing the order? As we see from early-day motion 347, it is, or was, in line with official Labour policy. The motion was tabled by the hon. Member for Darlington (Mr. Milburn) and signed by the hon. Members for Middlesbrough and for Hartlepool, among others. It sees unitary tier local government
as a building block towards elective regional government.
Why is Labour opposed to the measure? Perhaps it is for the reason that I read in an article in today's edition of The Northern Echo, under the headline:
Unions' plea to Blair to save County".


It reads:
The request comes from Britain's three biggest unions … Unison … GMB and the Transport and General Workers' Union.
They have written to Mr. Blair calling on him to make sure there is maximum opposition from Labour MPs to the order to wind up Cleveland—by imposing a three line whip.
We do not know whether Labour Members are on a three-line Whip or a two-line Whip—or possibly a four-line Whip—but I look forward to seeing two Labour Members stepping across the Floor later this evening.
Let me remind the House that the hon. Members for Jarrow (Mr. Dixon) and for Middlesbrough are sponsored by the GMB. The hon. Member for Redcar (Ms Mowlam)—I cannot see her at the moment—is sponsored by Unison. Perhaps that explains why she has taken the view she has.
What of the hon. Member for Middlesbrough? Not only has he chaired the co-ordinating group to establish unitary district councils; he initiated an Adjournment debate, in July last year, in which he excoriated the county council's handling of local government reorganisation. He pointed out, quite rightly, that Bryan Gould, the previous Member for Dagenham, had said that
there would be a positive response to the Government's proposals on structure, provided, of course, that the process of consultation was seen to be independent. In the case of the abolition of Cleveland county council, not only has the consultation been independent; it has also been upheld by the law of the land."—[Official Report, 7 July 1994; Vol. 246, c. 556.]
The hon. Member for Hartlepool, who was present at that debate, fully supported him.
So there we have it. Two members of Labour's Front-Bench scheme [HON. MEMBERS: "Scheme?"]—I mean team, but perhaps it is a scheme—apparently take the view that the order is marvellous and should be approved post haste. The Opposition Front-Bench spokesman tonight suddenly seems to be backtracking on what the former Member for Dagenham had to say not so long ago.

Mr. A. J. Beith: Surely no assurance was given to the unions that Labour would save the county of Hartlepool. None was given to the county of Cleveland, and none to the people of Hartlepool or Stockton, that they would get local government power into their own hands and their own authorities.

Mr. Devlin: The fact is that a disgraceful amount of local taxpayers' money in my constituency has been wasted on the campaign against the abolition of Cleveland county council. My hon. Friend the Member for Langbaurgh and I have stood up on many occasions, in the House and elsewhere, to protest about the serious waste of public money that has gone on. It has been squandered. I personally have not seen anything like it since the abolition of the Greater London council.
We have seen press releases, press conferences at every turn, judicial reviews, which have been unceremoniously thrown out of the High Court, the packing of public meetings throughout Cleveland, letter-writing campaigns, which have gone on relentlessly, the employment of public affairs consultants on huge salaries, employing various people to hold lunches around the place, and niggling at every possible opportunity. I understand that those people have stopped at nothing. Last week, Tory

rebels were being contacted in a final attempt to block the move. Every possible stone that could be turned in the campaign has been turned.
But I have to say that, while turmoil and shenanigans have reigned in the Labour party on the issue—it is unable to say whether it is for or against the retention of Cleveland county council—my hon. Friend the Member for Langbaurgh and I have been at one. Our local parties agree with us substantially. On cost, accountability and local identity, the proposals of the local government review meet the needs of local people, and they deserve the support of the House tonight.

Mr. Frank Cook: I should point out for the benefit of the House that the person who contacted the Tory dissidents to test their views on the issue was in fact County Councillor Hazel Pearson, leader of the Conservative group on Cleveland county council. So let us set the record straight. Furthermore, I am rather pleased that the hon. Member for Stockton, South (Mr. Devlin) is quite unable to distort any of my comments on the issue.
My old adversary, Richard Holt, would have revelled in tonight's joust. He started the campaign to crucify Cleveland years ago, and Tory Ministers have continued the vendetta ever since. It is an indication of the Government's obsession with carrying out their vendetta that they are prepared to put the matter before Parliament while it still remains subject to decision in the courts, despite statements from the Minister, including the Leader of the House, that it would be improper to do so.
The Local Government Commission clearly knew the answer that it had to produce for Cleveland before it had even begun its work. Why else did Sir John Banham write to the Secretary of State about its joint interest in achieving an early win in Cleveland, Avon and Humberside? Why else accuse Cleveland county council of producing fairyland figures when it warned of the inevitable cost implications of speeding up such a massive range of services? Now, of course, we know that those warnings were entirely justified.
Sir John Banham now admits that he knows of
not one single solitary shred of evidence
to suggest that unitary authorities of the kind that he proposes to impose on the people of Teesside would be able to provide better services. Indeed, he goes further and concedes that the entire exercise is "a gamble". Why, then, did he and his commission colleagues not say that to the people of Teesside before producing the paltry 40,000 leaflets that were meant to measure the views of more than half a million people? His efforts in Cleveland would have been inadequate even for tiny Rutland.
Why did the commission and the Government refuse the people of Teesside the balanced and accurate information about the options, both for the change and for retention of the present system? Why were the people not told, for example, that the commission's proposal is the most expensive option for change, with the highest level of transitional cost? Why were they not told that the alternative proposal of an authority for Teesside, with a second for Hartlepool, would have been far more cost-effective, in terms of both on-going savings and one-off transitional costs?
Indeed, the Audit Commission, when asked to comment, said in its report:
Having regard to the costs of readjusting operational services and the way in which the Teesside conurbation functions as a single urban entity, there are features of the two authority option which appear attractive. The structure among all those proposed which best fits community realities and likely to perform best in terms of the three Es.
That paragraph was removed from the Audit Commission's report by the Local Government Commission.
Why did the commission originally estimate the additional cost of its options at around £2 million a year, yet subsequently revise that estimate to £10 million a year, and eventually to £18 million a year, after the end of its discredited and shambolic consultation process? It is little wonder that, when the High Court judges to whom the hon. Member for Stockton, South referred examined the so-called "consultation" process in Cleveland, they concluded that, if a second-hand car salesman had acted with the same attitude to the truth, he would have ended up in the Old Bailey.
Why did the commission, in its report on Cleveland to the Secretary of State, fail to reflect the overwhelming strength of feeling against its proposals, expressed by so very many national and local organisations?
In reports for other areas, all such respondents are listed, with a summary of each individual organisation's views. No such information was provided in the Cleveland report. Why the secrecy? Why has the Secretary of State sought to hide from hon. Members similar information about representations that he has received? On several occasions, Ministers have assured the House that such information would be made available for inspection. In reality, Ministers have done everything possible to deny access to that information. Those representations remain hidden today.
The Secretary of State has reluctantly conceded that the majority of those representations are opposed to the proposals. Of the submissions that he has been prepared to release, there is not one independent voice in favour of the proposals. If such representations exist, why is he keeping them secret? Let us be honest: if they existed at all, he would be parading them proudly in Parliament square, with an escort of the Household Cavalry.
The strength of opposition and alarm over what is proposed cannot be overstated. It covers every service and every sector. Every key representative body from the area's business community—not just the trade unions, but the CBI, the chamber of commerce, the small business club—all regard the idea of fragmenting the Teesside conurbation as economic lunacy—[Interruption.]—
despite the laughter of the hon. Member for Stockton, South.
Only in Teesside is such a fragmentation of a major industrial community proposed—nowhere else in the country. Why in Cleveland? Health authorities in the area are horrified by the implications for the splitting of social services, and for such key initiatives as care in the community and the Children Act 1989. What nonsense that, at a time when various health authorities are being brought together under a single body, it is proposed that key partners in social services should be broken up.
The health authorities' fears are echoed by health professionals, including the area's general practitioners and the Government's own chief inspector of social

services. Service users and service providers are equally horrified, with opposition being expressed by bodies such as the Association of Directors of Social Services, the British Association of Social Workers, the Cleveland Disability Forum, the Spastics Society, Age Concern, the National Deaf Children's Society, the Association of Speech Impaired, the National League of the Blind and Disabled, the North Tees community health council and the Carers National Association.
People in education are similarly opposed, with 42 out of 44 secondary head teachers in the area opposing the proposals, and the same view being expressed by every major teaching association. The Government's own Office of Standards in Education attacked the commission's report for failing to give proper attention to educational provision.
The list is almost endless: the Council for National Parks, the Council for the Preservation of Rural England, English Heritage, the Institution of Highways and Transportation, the Library Association, the National Council of Archives, the regional tourist board, the Commission for Racial Equality and the Youth Hostel Association. It is hard to imagine a wider, stronger or more unanimous expression of opposition.
Every future key economic decision affecting Teesside will now be subject to a quango culture. The proposed Tees Valley development company, comprising 10 business men, 10 councillors and one independent chairman, will be the final piece in the jigsaw of quango government in Cleveland.
I warn those who support the order tonight that they will have to answer to the Cleveland electorate in the future. The scene is set for squabbling between quangos, with the people of Teesside standing by helplessly watching their economic future decline. The only justification that any commission or Minister might have for disregarding such overwhelming evidence would be an equally strong expression of public opinion in favour of the proposals. Yet what is the truth in Cleveland?
Only 2 per cent. of Cleveland's residents have been given an opportunity to have their say on proposals which will affect their lives for years to come, and less than 1 per cent. expressed support for the commission's proposals. It has been alleged that Cleveland county council should go because it is unpopular. In truth, there is no evidence that it is unpopular with the people who should really matter—those it serves.
The Local Government Commission showed that, in just 25 years, Cleveland has achieved an identity level among local people higher than many of the so-called traditional counties which have existed for centuries and which Banham and company now intend to leave untouched.
I have a lot more to say, but I realise that I am close to my time. The truth is that, before the introduction of the two-tier system and the creation of Cleveland, the majority of the area was governed by two county boroughs called Teesside and Hartlepool. In reality, putting right the mistakes of 1974—if mistakes they were—should mean a return to Teesside and Hartlepool. That is what the county council suggested and argued for. But Ministers are so blinkered in their views that they simply cannot bring themselves to agree with anything that the county suggests.
The problem seems to be that our system pays lip service to democracy and accountability in the Chamber and on public platforms, then slaughters those two characteristics privately in the abattoirs of the Division Lobbies.

Mr. Barry Field: First, I declare an interest as a vice-president of the Association of District Councils. I welcome the order and the four new authorities to the elite club of unitary authorities.
The hon. Member for Stockton, North (Mr. Cook) mentioned that illustrious character whom some of us were so privileged to know, Richard Holt, and I am delighted to see his successor, my hon. Friend the Member for Langbaurgh (Mr. Bates), here tonight nodding vigorously in agreement with the Minister. He is a man who has made much progress in the House, not only having established a unitary authority tonight for his local authority, but having joined that illustrious band in the Whips Office.
I apologise to my hon. Friend the Minister for not having given him notice of what I am about to say, but perhaps I might do so now for any future orders for unitary authorities. They tend to divide themselves into two parts—those that hive up the functions of local government and those that hive them down. The previous order for the Isle of Wight was a hiving-up order and this one is a hiving down into four unitary authorities.
I do not object to the order, but I shall continue to make my point concerning the position of parish and town councils under the reorganisation of local government whenever such orders come before the House.
This is like "Brideshead Revisited" for me because I chaired the Tees and Hartlepool Port Authority Bill. I remember that at the last minute Cleveland county council suddenly decided that it would object to the Bill and it sent along a rather extraordinary county councillor who professed to be a sudden convert to the ornithology of the salt marshes around Tees and Hartlepool, most of which had suffered over the years from the industrial output of the ICI fertiliser plant. It would be difficult to believe that there was so much as a stuffed bird there, let alone a winged one.
During that county councillor's cross-examination it became clear that all that he knew about birds was the frozen poultry counter in his local supermarket. One rather gathers, even from the lower echelons of the Isle of Wight, that Cleveland county council is a professional objector without an objective standpoint.
The House of Commons Library tells me that there are 30 parish councils and two town councils in the local government reorganisation. I know that my hon. Friend the Minister is aware of the point that I wish to raise, but I want to keep emphasising it. It may seem a small administrative point, but if the parish and town councils do not have some legislative mechanism in the reorganisation of local government into unitary authorities, their election cycle will be out of kilter with the local government cycle and their election expenses will, in some cases, come to more than the precept that they raise.
That is a matter of finance and straightforward administration, but worse than that is that politically, if the elections are not aligned, candidates who are not elected for the unitary authorities will subsequently stand for election to the parish and town councils. The system that the mechanism that we are debating is trying to abolish will effectively be duplicated. The citizens who are affected by the orders will never be able to understand why they pay all their rates to the local district or borough council yet the county council spends it all—pretty profligately, as it happens, in most cases. People do not understand that level of accountability.
The merit in the order is that in future rates will be paid to the local authority that spends them, but two separate election dates, one for the local parish and town councils and one for the unitary council, will effectively reduplicate the very system that we are abolishing.
I hope that before long my hon. Friend the Minister will tell us from the Dispatch Box when he intends to bring forward legislation to allow that situation to be amended in future by Order in Council so that wherever we are in the rolling programme of unitary authorities we can adjust the timetable of parish and town council elections to bring them into line, as we did under the previous local government reorganisation.

Mr. David Bendel: The creation of Cleveland was always one of the least popular aspects of local government reform in 1974, so perhaps it is no great surprise that the Conservative Government wish to abolish it now. However, it would have been hard to conceive of a more ham-fisted, slapdash and incompetent procedure for doing so. In Cleveland the Government had a wonderful opportunity to introduce a local government reform that could have had the support of the vast majority of the local people and widespread support throughout the Cleveland area.
In the event the Government's lack of consultation, their failure to resolve the issue of what should happen to strategic services, their imposition of the costs of reform on local residents, their inadequate attempts to calm the fears of staff, especially those working for the county council, their attempts to rush through an order while the possibility of a judicial review is still present and their basic failure—condemned by Sir John Banham himself—to consider the fundamental role and purpose of local councils, have all led to a general lack of enthusiasm among the residents of Cleveland.
The Government have wasted a large part of the good will that they earned when they first proposed a local government reform in Cleveland. In particular, they have much work to do in reassuring officers facing redundancy as a result of the reforms that they will be treated no more harshly than others who have previously found themselves in a similar position. The Liberal Democrats will seize every opportunity to press the Government hard on that issue.
Compensation must take account of the fact that the four unitary authorities will be continuing authorities. As I and others said when we debated the Isle of Wight order some months ago, continuing authorities, which will occur in relatively few cases, present especially intransigent problems for staff made redundant, and we should all urge the Government to arrange for compensation levels to take that into account.
My Liberal Democrat colleagues and I have had to consider one further critical point. Local government reform is always disruptive, and no country can afford to reform its local government structure too frequently. There is therefore a grave danger that reform now may in practice preclude a more popular and effective reform in the next Parliament.
Unfortunately, none of the severe defects in the procedure that I have highlighted can be remedied by our vote. The Government have bungled, but the questions facing Members of Parliament now is whether we should still support reform of local government in Cleveland, and whether there is still a majority in favour of that among local residents despite the bungling.
The Government have failed to arrange the sort of full survey of local opinion that the commission has organised in other areas. Instead we are left to rely on a MORI poll with a significant margin of error, carried out among only 1,200 residents. That poll also contains so many different options to choose from that the preference between the status quo and the proposal before us is not clear in the case of residents who chose entirely other options.
At our conference in Cardiff last year we Liberal Democrats made it clear that the Government should find means of consulting local people which enabled them to express a clear preference for one proposal or another. Instead the Government have had to rely on a single muddled opinion poll from which it is difficult to discover what local people really want. That has left it open to the borough councils and the county council to conduct their own opinion polls, and it comes as no surprise to find that those appear to reach different conclusions, which in turn are often interpreted as supporting the various preferences of the different councils. Such surveys do nothing much except muddy the waters even further.
I have therefore done some further analysis of the commission's MORI opinion poll figures with a view to finding out whether the people whose first preference was for one, two or three unitary councils would rather the House passed the order or not. The evidence is partial, but there is some in the second preferences given by poll respondents. If those are added to the initial first preference figures, it is clear that local people favour the unitary option over the status quo; the ratio is about three to two. That clear majority must lead us to consider seriously what other evidence or arguments there are in favour of the order.

Mr. Peter Mandelson: Come up and visit. Ask the people. Go to the shopping centre.

Mr. Rendel: If the hon. Gentleman waits a moment he may hear something about that, too.
The commission's poll also provided some evidence of local residents' feelings about the principle of unitary authorities in general. Perhaps it is not surprising that in an area such as Cleveland, where the original reforms were not popular, there is considerable support for that principle. Indeed, it is interesting to note that even at county level there is considerable support for a unitary solution, although that support tended to be for unitary authorities in Hartlepool and Teesside rather than for breaking up Teesside into three further unitary authorities, as is now suggested.
My party has supported the general principle all along, where it can be shown that that option is welcomed by local residents rather than being imposed by central

Government. Unitary authorities based on areas smaller than the present county councils will tend to bring democracy and decision making down closer to the local people, who will have more control over their own lives.
It is worth pointing out in passing that the principle of subsidiarity, which the Government are so keen to promote at European level, and now at county council level, too, should also be introduced at national level in the same way, by creating regional governments in England and separate governments for Scotland and Wales. It is absurd for the Prime Minister to say that he supports subsidiarity in an area as large as Europe, and in an area as small as a county, but that he regards the same principle as dangerous and totally unacceptable over an area of intermediate size, such as the United Kingdom.
Finally, in seeking the right answer for Cleveland, which represents one of the most controversial of all the reform proposals, I have taken the trouble to visit the area to discuss the issues with the representatives of the people.[Interruption.] No doubt other hon. Members yet to speak in the debate have done the same.
It became clear to me during my visit that there was an overwhelming weight of opinion in favour of a unitary authority in Hartlepool. Opinion on the right solution for the rest of Cleveland appeared more divided, but on balance seemed more or less in line with the MORI opinion poll that I have already described. I therefore believe that if the Labour party votes against the wishes of the people of Hartlepool, Langbaurgh, Middlesbrough and Stockton, those people will not lightly forgive it.
In summary, the message from the people of Cleveland is that the Government have bungled local government reform in a big way. About the only thing that they have got right is the decision to treat each area on its merits and not to insist on one solution for all parts of the country. We, too, will make our decisions on whatever orders come before the House without regard to any decisions that we have taken previously or may wish to take in the future. We shall be concerned only to do whatever we believe to be best for the area under consideration.
Meanwhile the Government have wasted not only vast sums but their opportunity to introduce what could have been, if they had handled it right, a really popular reform with a huge groundswell of good will behind it. They have alienated many who would have been their supporters and who would have supported the reforms, and they have left unanswered many questions that will need to be answered when the proposals are to be implemented. Nevertheless, there is still a clear majority of people in Cleveland who would like the reforms to go through, and it is on that basis that I shall vote for the order and advise my colleagues to do likewise.

Mr. Peter Mandelson: Under our procedures in the House it is not possible to vote against part of an order, or against some aspects of it. We must vote against the whole order or not vote against it at all.
At the outset it is important to emphasise again something stressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson). I agreed with some of what my hon. Friend said but not with all of it. As he pointed out, this evening's vote will not be a vote by the Opposition against the principle of creating four


unitary authorities in Cleveland. As a constituency Member, it is my duty to take a broad view and to represent faithfully what I believe are the true opinions and interests of my constituents. That is what I intend to do tonight.
Nobody can deny that for the past 20 years we have lived very uncomfortably with the concept of a Cleveland-wide authority. It is too large for the delivery of personal services yet too small to take a regional strategic view, and it creates confusion for the public and unnecessary duplication among staff. The case for change is now too strong to ignore. The transfer to unitary authorities based on the districts is long overdue.
For the reasons that I shall describe, I believe that the proposals of the Local Government Commission are sensible and that the decision of the Government to adopt them is correct. I support change, first, because it is what the majority—I believe the vast majority—of local people want. The four-district proposal has been shown in three successive independent surveys to be the most popular choice. The thorough consultation process that the Local Government Commission undertook, of which I had extensive personal knowledge, confirmed what the independent surveys of opinion found. In contrast, support for the Teesside-Hartlepool option favoured by the county council, has consistently hovered between only 5 and 8 per cent., despite the vigorous campaign for it. That is completely understandable.
What people in Cleveland want from local government before anything else, as people do everywhere else in the country, is well-managed, accessible and cost-effective local services which meet local needs and are in the hands of local councillors whom they can get hold of and make accountable for their actions. Unitary authorities in Cleveland would provide precisely that.
At present in Cleveland some services such as housing, leisure and waste collection are in local district hands. Other services such as education and social services are in remote county hands. Roads, the environment and other services are in everyone's hands and, in some cases, it appears, in no one's hands at all. If there was some sensible rationale for this division and confusion, it might be worth maintaining, but the original justification that certain responsibilities could not be left with some authorities because they were too small or lacked competence has not been borne out by experience in Cleveland.
All the district councils have managed the services which were left with them in a thoroughly competent and effective way. Everyone from the Audit Commission down recognises and acknowledges that. That leads me to my next point. There is a need to create local councils which reflect both the identities and interests of the local communities that they serve and to ensure that those councils have the capacity to deliver the services for which they are responsible. If we had the first without the second, we would be in trouble. However, in the case of Hartlepool, Stockton, Middlesbrough and Langbaurgh councils, both conditions are amply satisfied. That strongly supports the changes which are being proposed in the order.
However, obviously we need to ask whether carrying out the changes is worth the candle. Is it all too much bother and expense to undertake the reorganisation? My

answer is that if it is worth having local government, we might as well get it right and achieve the best possible arrangements so long as we do not incur long-term costs in the process. We would achieve that by accepting the order tonight.
I have a great deal of faith in the proven track record of the district councils to make the transition smooth. I believe that the county council will also do so once it decides to co-operate, probably with a great deal less tension than exists between the districts and the county council at present. I am also satisfied that the council tax payer will be better off financially as a result of the new arrangements.
The most expensive option is to retain the existing two-tier arrangements. Both the four-district change and the Teesside-Hartlepool alternative advanced by the county council would cost less. The argument has been about which change would produce more savings. It boils down to a pretty marginal difference indeed. The propagandists have had a field day on the subject. They have taken the worst extremes of ranges of figures to suit their particular case. I should say only that, with total expenditure in the review area in excess of £800 million, the difference between the options is only about 0.5 per cent.
It is clear that savings would arise from all the options. In the case of the four districts, as the Minister has already said, the savings will be between £6 million and £11 million. That will recur year on year. The transitional costs will be recovered within three years.
I mentioned propaganda. I do not wish to dwell too long on the ingeniously inventive and expensively propagated red herrings of the county council. In other circumstances, media manipulators and spin doctors everywhere, not to mention manufacturers of fax machines, would be proud of the county council's efforts. One of its arguments needs to be refuted tonight. It has been alleged that new unitary councils would be accompanied by a plethora of joint boards, quangos and the like. That is absolutely wrong. There is no substance to the claim whatever.
Aside from such shared arrangements as archives, superannuation and archaeology, there would be joint authorities, which I stress would consist of elected members, only for police and fire. Who on earth could argue with that? The boroughs would assume joint responsibility for structure planning for the whole area. That leads to the last and important point about the economy and the employment prospects of the area. Some individuals in the business community have argued that the area needs a mega-authority called Teesside to take a strategic view of the area and to draw in investment.
I desperately want to see investment and employment created throughout the area. That is the best way to tackle the poverty and deprivation which scars so many of our neighbourhoods, but the best way of achieving that is by allowing local councils with detailed local knowledge and application to work hand in hand with more powerful regional organisations and in partnership with the private sector throughout our region. The recent experience of the Samsung Electronics investment and the leading role that the Northern Development Company played, guiding the local councils, demonstrates that.
In conclusion, the model that we need to look at is a combination of genuinely local services provided by accountable district councils and regional engines of


economic and industrial growth in the public sector, working in partnership with business to obtain the best results for the local population. That is an agenda to await a different Government, but the creation of the unitary authorities by passing the order is an essential foundation. I believe that it should commend itself to the House.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I call Mr. Stuart Bell.

Ms Margaret Hodge: rose—

Mr. Stuart Bell: As Charlie Chaplin said, enthusiasm is the thing.
I am always grateful to be mentioned in dispatches by the hon. Member for Stockton, South (Mr. Devlin). He quoted extensively from my speech of 7 July. I should like to quote what he did not. I said:
We are anxious about jobs, not redundancies. There is no doubt, however, that concern has been expressed about the current redundancy package envisaged. It is essential for there to be a fair and mandatory system of compensation. This is essential to complete the local government review successfully in Cleveland and, indeed, elsewhere."—[Official Report, 7 July 1994; Vol. 246, c. 558.]
So we have placed on record our concern about jobs and redundancy packages. There will be another debate and another vote on that issue.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stockton, North (Mr. Cook), who is still in the Chamber, made a fine speech that came from the heart as well as from the facts. I am told that the best speeches come from the heart.

Mr. Mandelson: The fax?

Mr. Bell: I said facts, not fax. We shall come to the faxes later.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stockton, North made a speech which came from the heart and which was memorable. He mentioned the Tees Valley development company. I assure him that the company will be a genuine partnership between the public and the private sector. There will be a strong political input and influence and no one is more concerned than we are in Cleveland about the growth of quangos. I can assure my hon. Friend that a new quango will not be created through the Tees Valley development company.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson) mentioned Samsung and I must put on record—as I did from the Front Bench the day after the event—the fact that we recognise the role played by Cleveland county council in that development. We obliged the Government to recognise that and they did so today from the Dispatch Box. We all recognise that very important fact.

Ms Marjorie Mowlam: Will my hon. Friend extend the same compliments to some other employees in Cleveland county who worked so hard on education and social services and who have, to some extent, been abused in this debate?

Mr. Bell: I am grateful that I allowed my hon. Friend to intervene. She anticipates the next part of my speech. We should give credit not only to Cleveland county council and its leader but to local councillors, those on the executive side and the people in the fire, education and social services, who have done an excellent job, which is recognised all round.
In my front room, a painting of Crauford's Light Brigade hangs on the wall, in which the 95th, 43rd and 52nd Rifles face about once more to hold back the enemy. It depicts soldiers standing in the snow, preparing a rearguard action. Their job was to hold back the enemy during the retreat from Spain of Sir John Moore's army after the battle of Corunna, where Sir John was killed.
No one can deny that the rearguard action fought by Cleveland county council was of heroic proportions. It fought, not in the snows of Cleveland, but in the press, on the radio and through the fax machine. If any of us ever gets our hands on the inventor of that machine, we will strangle him and we will say not, "Remember the Alamo," but, "Remember Cleveland county council." We hope that the days when we came to our offices to find five to 10 pages on the fax machine are over.
Cleveland fought the battle not only through the fax machine but through the courts. The hon. Member for Stockton, South referred to that fact. Under adverse conditions, its delaying tactics were brilliant, but just as in the rearguard actions of old the last soldier falls, doomed, its action falls doomed tonight. Its rearguard action is over. The snows of yesteryear do not concern us. I hope that the battle is over.
Those who are anxious to know how some Labour Members will vote would probably like to be reminded of Aneurin Bevan's famous comment that he who fights and runs away lives to run away another day and he who speaks but does not vote lives to vote another day. My hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) said that a compensation order would be introduced to deal with employment conditions in the Cleveland area, and our votes will surely be behind our Front Bench on that occasion.
More than two Labour Members of Parliament will not vote on this issue. Others have strongly supported the concept of the single-tier authority and have supported the district authority. For the past 20 years, the Labour party has been committed to moving towards single-tier authorities in many of our major cities and I am satisfied that tonight many of the Members who fought so long will take note of the vote and the long struggle.
It is just after the Christmas holidays and good will prevails. To Paul Hartford, leader of the council, I would say, "You ran a strong campaign." I surmise that no one in the House or in the country has been unaware of it. It was strong and he deserves credit for running it in the interests of what he believed to be right.
We are in a poetic frame of mind and a man's grasp must exceed his reach
Or what's a heaven for?

Mr. Frank Cook: His
reach should exceed his grasp".

Mr. Bell: My hon. Friend is rewriting Browning, as he often rewrites history, but we will forgive him that at this time.
Tonight we offer a new opportunity—

Mr. Cook: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Checking the Official Report will prove who was correct.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is taking some of his hon. Friend's 10 minutes.

Mr. Bell: We offer a new beginning for the people of Cleveland and it is power to the people. My hon. Friend the Member for Stockton, North gave us a litany of the organisations in Cleveland that supported Cleveland county council. The only category that he left out was the people. He did not take them into account. The people of Middlesbrough, Hartlepool, Langbaurgh and Stockton have shown in opinion polls, consultations and proceedings of every kind that one could wish for, that they want a single tier—the four-district option. That part of history cannot be rewritten. We are offering the people of Cleveland a new beginning—local democracy closer to the people, accountability to the people and a duty to serve, rather than to rule.
We do not want to confuse this great occasion by mentioning Abraham Lincoln—I may be corrected again by my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton, North—but he believed in government of the people, for the people and by the people. Let the decision of the House tonight be that the people of Cleveland should be the winners and not the bureaucrats, the elected councillors acting in caucus or single-issue pressure groups. Let us remember that we are here to serve, rather than to rule. That will be the concept for authorities in the future. This will be the new beginning and that is what I accept and will fully support tonight—[HON. MEMBERS: "Will you vote for it, then?"]—after the vote is called.

Ms Margaret Hodge: My reason for taking a few minutes during this debate is that I spent a short time as a member of the Local Government Commission. I thank the Minister for giving me the opportunity to do So.
I share the view of many hon. Members—the principle of unitary authorities is one that I support and that is why I accepted that position. People are best served through unitary government, with one authority responsible for all personal services.
Frankly, however, this exercise in local authority reorganisation has been a disaster for a number of reasons. The legislation was poorly drafted. It did not enable the Local Government Commission or the House to consider organic change, either by giving some authorities, especially the large cities, the opportunity to become unitary authorities, or by allowing some personal services to be devolved to the districts, with strategic planning kept at the county level. There was no provision for a regional tier of government, which is essential if we want to retain a whole range of strategic issues under democratic control.
The Lancashire county council judgment, which resulted from the poorly phrased legislation, was a disaster. Inevitably, it led to most of the main players in the debate moving towards the status quo. Those who sought change were unable to achieve a consensus. The process was not a happy one.
Local government has been poorly served by the chairman of the Local Government Commission. He showed no consistency of approach, was too often influenced by personal preferences and personal

experiences, rather than objective assessment, and operated somewhat undemocratically and autocratically. We should have dispensed with his services.
Members of the commission—I include myself—were an ad hoc group of people who had little in common and were not well served by officers who were hastily brought together without ensuring that they had the proper competencies.
The results for Cleveland are quite sensible, but Cleveland is the exception, not the rule. The overall results for local government are a disaster. If we start approving in an ad hoc way reorganisation for one or two parts of the country, we shall end up with an administrative and a structural mess, with no coherence, consistency or common sense. We shall have to return to the issue when Labour takes office rather than get on with developing the services that local communities require.
The Government should and could have taken another view. The legislation is wrong, the process has been bungled and the outcome is a mess. This review has been a failure and it is a disaster for local government. Parliament has got local government into a mess and it will be up to a future Labour Government to clear it up.

8 pm

Mr. Curry: With the leave of the House, I wish to make a few rapid comments in reply. I understand why Opposition Front-Bench Members did not wish to reply in the light of the remarks of Labour Members tonight.
The hon. Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Mr. Dobson) made an important statement. He said that no recommendation should be placed before the House until the process had been completed. I hope that he knows the implications of his statement in terms of uncertainty for all those who work in local government. I hope that he has discussed the matter with some of the Labour leaders of local authorities such as Hull, which is about as rock solid a Labour authority as it is possible to get. The implication of what he said perpetuates uncertainty and discontent throughout local government. It is just as well that people realise that it will mean a period of protracted uncertainty. It is hypocritical to pretend that one is concerned about people's employment prospects if the process is to be kept hanging over them until it is finished and the recommendations are bunched up and brought before the House.
Secondly, the hon. Gentleman anticipated the review and talked about the areas that should get unitary status. With the aid of clairvoyance, he mentioned Ipswich, Norwich and Exeter. He certainly does not understand the past; perhaps he is better on the future. Is that Labour policy? If so, perhaps he forgets that the old county boroughs would become unitary, that Hartlepool and Middlesbrough are old county boroughs and that Stockton was close to an old county borough because it had special powers over education and other areas. So the hon. Gentleman has contradicted himself. That simply does not work—

It being one and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings on the motion, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKERput the Question, pursuant to Order [16 December].

The House proceeded to a Division.

Mr. Devlin (seated and covered): On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I wonder whether you could keep the Doors to the Lobby open for a little longer as the hon.
Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. Bell) and for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson) seemed to lose their way into the Aye Lobby.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: That was not a point of order and the hon Gentleman knows it It was an abuse of the House.

The House having divided: Ayes 310, Noes 223.

Division No. 35]
[8.02 pm


AYES


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Cope, Rt Hon Sir John


Aitken, Rt Hon Jonathan
Cormack Sir Patrick


Alexander, Richard
Couchman, James


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Cran, James


Allason, Rupert (Torbay)
Critchley, Julian


Amess, David
Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)


Ancram, Michael
Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)


Arbuthnot, James
Davies, Quentin (Stamford)


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Day, Stephen


Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)
Deva, Nirj Joseph


Ashby, David
Devlin, Tim


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Dicks, Terry


Aspinwall, Jack
Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen


Atkins, Robert
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Dover, Den


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)
Duncan, Alan



Baldry, Tony
Duncan Smith, Iain


Banks, Matthew (Southport)
Dunn, Bob


Batiste, Spencer
Durant, Sir Anthony


Beggs, Roy
Dykes, Hugh


Beith, Rt Hon A J
Eggar, Tim


Bellingham, Henry
Elletson, Harold


Bendall, Vivian
Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Beresford, Sir Paul
Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)


Booth, Hartley
Evans, Roger (Monmouth)


Boswell, Tim
Evennett, David


Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)
Fabricant, Michael


Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia
Fenner, Dame Peggy


Bowden, Sir Andrew
Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)


Bowis, John
Fishburn, Dudley


Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes
Forman, Nigel


Brandreth, Gyles
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Brazier, Julian
Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)


Bright, Sir Graham
Forth, Eric


Brooke, Fit Hon Peter
Foster, Don (Bath)


Brown, M (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)
Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)


Browning, Mrs. Angela
Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)


Bruce, Ian (Dorset)
Freeman, Rt Hon Roger


Burns, Simon
French, Douglas


Burt, Alistair
Fry, Sir Peter


Butcher, John
Gallie, Phil


Butler, Peter
Gardiner, Sir George


Butterfill, John
Garnier, Edward


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Gillan, Cheryl


Carlisle, John (Luton North)
Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair


Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln)
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Carrington, Matthew
Gorst, Sir John


Cash, William
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Chapman, Sydney
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)


Chidgey, David
Grylls, Sir Michael


Churchill, Mr
Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn


Clappison, James
Hague, William


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archibald



Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Coe, Sebastian
Hannam, Sir John


Colvin, Michael
Hargreaves, Andrew


Congdon, David
Harris, David


Conway, Derek
Harvey, Nick


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)
Haselhurst, Alan


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Hawkins, Nick





Hawksley, Warren
Moate, Sir Roger


Hayes, Jerry
Molyneaux, Ftt Hon James


Heald, Oliver
Monro, Sir Hector


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Hendry, Charles
Moss, Malcolm


Hicks, Robert
Needham, Rt Hon Richard


Hill, James (Southampton Test)
Nelson, Anthony


Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)
Neubert, Sir Michael


Horam, John
Newton, Rt Hon Tony


Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Nicholls, Patrick


Howard, Rt Hon Michael
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)
Norris, Steve


Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)
Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley


Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)
Oppenheim, Phillip


Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)
Ottaway, Richard


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Page, Richard


Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)
Paice, James


Hunter, Andrew
Patrick, Sir Irvine


Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas
Patten, Rt Hon John


Jack, Michael
Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Jackson, Robert (Wantage)
Pawsey, James


Jenkin, Bernard
Pickles, Eric


Jesse!, Toby
Porter, David (Waveney)


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Portillo, Rt Hon Michael


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Powell, William (Corby)


Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)
Rathhbone, Tim


Jones, Robert B (W Hertfdshr)
Redwood, Rt Hon John


Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine
Rendel, David


Key, Robert
Renton, Rt Hon Tim


Kilfedder, Sir James
Richards, Rod


King, Rt Hon Tom
Riddick, Graham


Kirkhope, Timothy
Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm


Kirkwood, Archy
Robathan, Andrew


Knapman, Roger
Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)


Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)
Robinson, Mark (Somerton)


Knight, Greg (Derby N)
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)


Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)
Ross, William (E Londonderry)


Knox, Sir David
Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela


Kynoch, George (Kincardine)
Ryder, Rt Hon Richard


Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Sackville, Tom


Lament, Rt Hon Norman
Sainsbury, Rt Hon Sir Tim


Lang, Rt Hon Ian
Scott, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Lawrence, Sir Ivan
Shaw, David (Dover)


Legg, Barry
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Leigh, Edward
Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian


Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)
Shersby, Michael


Lidington, David
Sims, Roger



Lightbown, David
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Lilley, Ftt Hon Peter
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Lord, Michael
Soames, Nicholas


Luff, Peter
Speed, Sir Keith


Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Spencer, Sir Derek


Lynne, Ms Liz
Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)


MacKay, Andrew
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Maclean, David
Spink, Dr Robert


McLoughlin, Patrick
Spring, Richard



Maddock, Diana
Sproat, Iain


Madel, Sir David
Squire, Robin (Homchurch)


Maginnis, Ken
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Maitland, Lady Olga
Steen, Anthony


Major, Rt Hon John
Stephen, Michael


Malone, Gerald
Stern, Michael


Mans, Keith
Stewart, Allan


Mariand, Paul
Streeter, Gary


Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Sumberg, David


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Sweeney, Walter


Mates, Michael
Sykes, John


Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Mellor, Rt Hon David
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Merchant, Piers
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)
Temple-Morris, Peter


Mills, Iain
Thomason, Roy


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)
Thomton, Sir Malcolm






Townsend, Cyril D (Bexl'yh'th)
Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John


Tracey, Richard
Whitney, Ray


Tredinnick, David
Whittingdale, John


Trend, Michael
Widdecombe, Ann


Trimble, David
Wiggin, Sir Jerry


Twinn, Dr Ian
Wilkinson, John


Tyler, Paul
Willetts, David


Vaughan, Sir Gerard
Wilshire, David


Viggers, Peter
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Waldegrave, Rt Hon William
Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield


Walden, George
Wolfson, Mark


Walker, A Cecil (Belfast N)
Wood, Timothy


Walker, Bill (N Tayside)
Yeo, Tim


Waller, Gary
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Ward, John



Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Waterson, Nigel
Mr. Michael Bates and Mr. Bowen Wells.


Watts, John





NOES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Davidson, Ian


Adams, Mrs Irene
Davies, Bryan (Oldham c'tral)


Ainger, Nick
Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'dge H'I)


Allen, Graham
Dewar, Donald


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Dixon, Don


Armstrong, Hilary
Dobson, Frank


Ashton, Joe
Donohoe, Brian H


Austin-Walker, John
Dowd, Jim


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth


Barnes, Harry
Eagle, Ms Angela


Barron, Kevin
Eastham, Ken


Battle, John
Enright, Derek


Bayley, Hugh
Etherington, Bill


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Evans, John (St Helens N)


Bennett, Andrew F
Fatchett, Derek


Benton, Joe
Field, Frank (Birkenhead)


Bermingham, Gerald
Flynn, Paul


Berry, Roger
Foster, Rt Hon Derek


Betts, Clive
Foulkes, George


Blair, Rt Hon Tony
Fraser, John


Blunkett, David
Fyfe, Maria


Boateng, Paul
Galbraith, Sam


Boyes, Roland
Galloway, George


Bradley, Keith
Gapes, Mike


Bray, Dr Jeremy
George, Bruce


Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)
Gerrard, Neil


Brown, N (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)
Godman, Dr Norman A


Burden, Richard
Godsrff, Roger


Caborn, Richard
Golding, Mrs Llin


Callaghan, Jim
Gordon, Mildred


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Graham, Thomas


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)


Campbell-Savours, D N
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Canavan, Dennis
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Cann, Jamie
Gunnell, John


Chisholm, Malcolm
Hain, Peter


Church, Judith
Hanson, David


Clapham, Michael
Hardy, Peter


Clark, Dr David (Soulh Shields)
Harman, Ms Harriet


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Henderson, Doug


Clelland, David
Heppell, John


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Hill, Keith (Streatham)


Connarty, Michael
Hinchliffe, David


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Hodge, Margaret


Cook, Robin (Livingston)
Hoey, Kate


Corbett, Robin
Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)


Corston, Jean
Home Robertson, John


Cousins, Jim
Hoon, Geoffrey


Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John
Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)


Dalyell, Tam
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)


Darling, Alistair
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)





Hutton, John
Pendry, Tom


lllsley, Eric
Rckthall, Colin


Ingram, Adam
pike, Peter L


Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)
Prentice, Bridget (Lew'm E)


Janner, Greville
Prentice, Gordon (Pendte)


Jones, Barry (Aryn and D'side)
Prescott Rt Hon John


Jones, Lynne (B'ham S o)
Prrmarolo, Dawn


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)
Purchase, Ken


Jowell, Tessa
Quin, Ms Joyce


Keen, Alan
Radice, Giles


Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)
Randal, Stuart


Khabra, piara S
Raynsford, Nick


Kilfoyle, Peter
Redmond, Martin


Lestor, Joan (Eccles)
Reid, DrJohn


Lewis, Terry
Robertson, George (Hamilton)


Liddell, Mrs Helen
Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)


Litherland, Robert
Roche, Mrs Barbara


Livingstone, Ken
Rooker, Jeff


Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Rooney, Terry


Llwyd, Elfyn
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Loyden, Eddie
Ruddock, Joan


McAllion, John
Sedgemore, Brian


McAvoy, Thomas
Sheerman, Barry


McCartney, Ian
Skinner, Dennis


Macdonald, Calum
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


McFall, John
Smith, Chris (Isl'ton S & F'sbury)


McKelvey, William
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


Mackinlay, Andrew
Snape, Peter


McLeish, Henry
Soley, Clive


McMaster, Gordon
Spearing, Nigel



Spellar, John


MacShane, Denis
Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)


McWilliam, John
Steinberg, Gerry


Madden, Max
Stott Roger


Mahon, Alice



Marek, Dr John
Strang Dr. Gavin



Straw, Jack


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Sutcliffe, Gerry


Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Martlew, Eric
Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)


Maxton, John
Timms, Stephen


Meale, Alan
Tipping, Paddy


Michael, Alun
Turner, Dennis


Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)
Vaz, Keith


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold


Morgan, Rhodri
Walley, Joan


Morley, Elliot
Warded, Gareth (Gower)


Mowlam, Marjorie
Watson, Mike


Mudie, George
Wicks, Malcolm


Mullin, Chris
Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)


Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon
Wilson, Brian


O'Brien, Mike (N W'kshire)
Winnick, David


O'Hara, Edward
Worthington, Tony


Olner, Bill
Wray, Jimmy


O'Neill, Martin
Wright, Dr Tony


Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Paisley, The Reverend Ian



Parry, Robert
Tellers for the Noes:


Patehett Terry
Ms Estelle Morris and Mr. Stephen Byers.


Pearson, Ian

Question accordingly agreed to.

Resolved

That the draft Cleveland (structural Change) Order 1994, Which was laid before this House in 8th December, be approved.

Orders of the Day — Value Added Tax

The Paymaster General (Mr. David HeathcoatAmory): I beg to move,
That the Value Added Tax (Buildings and Land) Order 1994 (S.I., 1994, No. 3013), dated 29th November 1994, a copy of which was laid before this House on 29th November, be approved.
I understand that with this it will be convenient to discuss at the same time the following motion:
That the Value Added Tax (Transport) Order 1994 (S.I., 1994, No. 3014), dated 29th November 1994, a copy of which was laid before this House on 29th November, be approved.
We have two orders to consider, the first being the Value Added Tax (Buildings and Land) Order 1994. I will briefly set out the reasoning behind the order and the need for it.
The order closes a widely used VAT avoidance scheme, which is most often implemented by the use of commercial lease and leaseback arrangements, although it is not limited solely to those schemes.
Hon. Members will know that businesses supplying goods and services that are exempt from VAT, such as finance, gaming, health and educational services are not able to recover all the VAT that they pay on their own expenditure. Sometimes they cannot recover any of it. In contrast, businesses supplying goods and services that bear VAT can recover the VAT they pay on their expenditure. When an exempt business purchases a new building or has one constructed it will pay a large amount of VAT which would normally be wholly or mainly irrecoverable. In order to avoid that, some businesses have been leasing the building to an associated company, often formed specifically for the purpose, and then leasing it back again and occupying it.
Both companies then make use of a provision called the option to tax, which allows them to tax the. rents charged under the leases, which would ordinarily be exempt from VAT. That allows the exempt company to recover from the outset the VAT paid on the building. It cannot recover VAT on rents paid to the associated company under that lease, but as the lease is often extremely long, that has the effect of artificially spreading VAT paid on the building over many years. In one extreme case, a lease of 2,000 years was used. The Exchequer cannot wait that long to collect VAT on buildings constructed today.
The avoidance device is increasingly used in the financial sector but also by some universities, some fee-paying schools, hospitals and charities. In some grant-funded building projects the VAT will already have been catered for in the grant, so it cannot be right that such projects also enjoy an additional VAT relief through an avoidance scheme.
Those schemes are costing the Exchequer £200 million a year. We therefore decided that the option to tax should not be made available to those using such a scheme. VAT paid on buildings will properly accrue to the Exchequer from the outset. The necessary order effecting that was laid before the House on 29 November and took effect on 30 November.
The provision is not retrospective. Existing leases will not be affected. Under article 2 of the order, an option to tax will be ineffective on leases executed or land transferred on or after 30 November 1994 if at the time,

first, the grantor and the grantee are connected and, secondly, either the grantor or grantee is not entitled to recover all the VAT paid on its business expenditure. Thus the rental income will be exempt from VAT, and tax on the building cost will not be recoverable.
The measure, therefore, is not intended to affect businesses engaged in normal commercial property transactions, nor does it prevent the use of lease and leaseback arrangements. It merely ensures that the Exchequer receives revenue at the correct time in accordance with the original intention behind the VAT legislation. I commend the order to the House.
The second order before us is the Value Added Tax (Transport) Order 1994. That order was also made on 29 November 1994, but comes into effect on 1 April 1995. Public passenger transport in this country, unlike most other European countries, is zero-rated. It has been so since VAT was introduced in 1973, and was justified on social grounds.
The order aims to bring the scope of the relief more into line with what Parliament originally intended. It is highly selective, removing zero-rating only in circumstances where relief cannot be justified on social grounds, and is clearly distinguishable from the normal concept of public passenger transport.

Mr. David Marshall: Can the Minister explain to the House why flights that are intended to cure people's phobia of flying will be subject to VAT, yet booze cruises out to sea and back will not? How can he justify a decision such as that? Where is the logic? Are not the aviation and coach industries being singled out for punitive treatment in that respect?

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: I think that the hon. Gentleman would agree that a flight leaving one place and returning to the same place, and of the type described, to cure a fear of flying, is not public transport—certainly riot in the way that was understood by the House in 1973. Public transport must involve at least a transport of the public from one place to another. That is why we are restricting the zero-rating to what Parliament intended at the time.

Mr. Paul Tyler: rose—

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: If the hon. Gentleman hopes to speak later on behalf of the Liberal Democrat party—

Mr. Tyler: indicated dissent.

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: The hon. Gentleman does not, so I give way to him.

Mr. Tyler: It is precisely because I do not want to take the time of the House later that I want to make a specific argument about the tourist industry. I understand clearly what the Minister has just said about the logic, but I think that he is well aware that the tourist industry is alarmed about the proposal, because it will affect a number of steam railways, it will affect operators of boat trips and it appears to be being introduced without any consultation with the tourist industry.
I should be grateful if the Minister would tell us what consultation has taken place with the statutory tourist organisations or tourist operators before or since the order


was laid. The statutory organisations have expressed anxiety to me. The proposal appears to have come literally out of the blue, without any proper consultation.

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: It certainly has not come out of the blue because it was announced on 29 November, and therefore there has been time to discuss the matter and to put at rest several unnecessary fears. The hon. Gentleman may be alluding to a number of supposed proposals to apply VAT at a positive rate to boat trips and other tourist attractions, when that is not the intention.

Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: Before I give way again, I shall proceed with my introductory remarks, because I want to emphasise that public transport in its usual and accepted sense, whether it is by bus or by coach, by train, ship or air, is not affected by the order, and will continue to be zero-rated.
I also want to lay at rest any idea or suspicion that the order has anything to do with any requirement from the European Community, because our zero rates are fully safeguarded by the sixth VAT directive, which can be amended only with the unanimous agreement of all member states, and we have no intention of removing zero-rating from public transport.

Sir David Mitchell: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way. I declare an interest as a member of the North Yorkshire Moors Railway and the Watercress line. Will my hon. Friend give me a clear assurance that there will be no VAT on train journeys on those preserved railways?

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: Yes; I can give that assurance to my hon. Friend. These railways are zero-rated at the moment and will not be affected by the order, so I am happy to give that assurance. I think that that partly answers the argument made by the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler), because many groundless anxieties have been caused, and I hope to set them at rest during the debate.

Mr. Richard Page: When the matter was introduced in the Budget, it was clearly stated, under item 10, that the compliance cost assessment would be referred to relevant trade associations. As someone who is interested in and connected with the major trade association in this country, the Association of British Travel Agents Ltd, I know that the association was not contacted regarding the effect of the proposal. I feel strongly that it is premature to introduce it at this stage, without proper consultation throughout the industry.

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: I give my hon. Friend the assurance that there will be no significant compliance cost because the legislation is a simplifying measure; therefore the anxieties expressed that it will be a bureaucratic imposition on the tourist trade are unfounded, as has been displayed by the compliance cost paper that is available.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: There will be opportunities for my hon. Friends to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy

Speaker, and I do not want to trespass too far into the debate itself. Before I give way again, I shall outline the three main areas of transport covered by the order.
The first main area concerns charges for admission to, or for the use of facilities at, places of amusement, entertainment, historical or cultural interest; those will become wholly liable to the standard rate. Currently, some such places that provide their customers with some forms of transport have been able to treat their supplies as wholly or partly zero-rated, while the rest of the admission charge is liable to VAT at the standard rate.
The second main area concerns charges for car parking facilities provided at airports together with a transport service between the car park and the airport terminal; those will become wholly standard-rated. Such charges may currently be apportioned between standard-rated car parking and zero-rated transport, with some operators being able to apply the zero rate to a high proportion of the total charge, even though the customer is primarily receiving a car parking facility.
The third main area covers pleasure flights, which include hot air balloon rides and other trips by air for pleasure or amusement or for the experience of flying; they will be standard-rated. In some cases that means no change, as rides with fewer than 12 seats are already standard-rated.

Mr. Robert Banks: I ask my hon. Friend to pursue the matter a little further and elaborate. Are we talking about roller-coaster rides in amusement fairs? Are we talking about ski lifts at Aviemore? Are we talking about overhead cable railways, such as those that run in an amusement park in Yorkshire?

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: The roller-coaster rides that are seen at funfairs and at some theme parks and so on are already standard-rated, so will not be affected, but train rides within such amusements, or cable rides or monorails, will become standard-rated because such rides are not public transport. A number of known safari or theme parks will not only apply standard rating to existing attractions, but will extend it to the transport elements included in the admission price.

Mr. Gary Waller: May I press my hon. Friend a little more on preserved railways? He will know of the great importance that they have in many areas including my own, where we have the Keighley and Worth Valley railway. Will my hon. Friend assure the House that journeys on preserved railways, whether by steam or diesel, will not be subject to VAT, notwithstanding the fact that one of the stations on the Keighley and Worth Valley railway serves Haworth, the home of the Brontes, and is visited by many tourists every year?

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: I appreciate the fact that my hon. Friend may not be giving full descriptions of all the facilities in his constituency, but his description of the railway leads me to assert with confidence that it will not be standard-rated.

Mr. Bill Walker: Will sporting activities such as club members flying gliders throughout Europe that are currently, because of the sporting aspect, zero-rated in the United Kingdom, continue to be so?

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: As I understand it, gliding clubs—I know of my hon. Friend's interest in them—are exempted from VAT and will remain unaffected by the order. I am happy to give that assurance.
I emphasise that the order is confined to transport in a narrow range of circumstances, so zero-rating will continue to apply to the vast majority of cases. Steam train rides and boat trips, including ferries and canal boats, which are currently zero-rated, will continue to be relieved. The exception, mentioned earlier, involves trips at places such as theme and safari parks and other places of entertainment or interest. In those circumstances, admission charges, fares or other charges, which are currently either zero-rated or apportioned, will become wholly liable at the standard rate. Subject to the agreement of the House the order will come into effect on 1 April 1995 and is expected to generate additional revenue of about £45 million in a full year.

Ms Dawn Primarolo: In dealing with the two orders on VAT I shall first discuss the Value Added Tax (Buildings and Land) Order 1994 and make it clear that we will not press the order to a vote. However, I seek from the Minister some replies and clarification on a number of points. As the Minister has explained, the order involves the VAT exempt sector, which is different from the zero-rated sector. It deals specifically with the subject of lease and leaseback. A number of points have been raised on that issue and on the drafting of the order.
The Law Society has sought clarification from Customs and Excise on the specific nature of the loopholes that are being closed to prevent VAT avoidance. The transactions allowing such avoidance will not be permitted. But the Law Society has told us that Customs and Excise has acknowledged that the order goes too far and goes beyond the steps necessary to prevent VAT avoidance. It has apparently said that some form of extra-statutory concessions may be needed to tidy up the order. I should be grateful if the Minister could this evening tell the House whether that it is so.
The next two issues involve the definition of a third party and the possibility of the order applying retrospectively. It has been made clear that the effective date is 30 November 1994. If that is correct, the order is, arguably, retrospective and could have serious implications for many exempted bodies. Can the Minister give an assurance to the House that the legislation will not be retrospective and that the loophole being closed will take effect as indicated in the order?
My next point relates to the way in which the order blocks the loophole allowing tax avoidance, which it claims to seek to do. The order will be effective in blocking all lease and leaseback schemes. It applies only to the granting of leases between connected parties where either party is exempt. It appears that the exempt person developing the new building for his or her own use could circumvent the order by entering into a third-party agreement on lease or leaseback. The explanations to the provisions are not exactly clear. I should be grateful if we could have confirmation that such circumvention is not possible and that there can be no way in which, by using a third party, exemptions can still be obtained and avoidance achieved.
The Value Added Tax (Transport) Order 1994 contains an entirely different set of propositions. As some of the interventions this evening have already shown, the order is controversial. It has been extremely tortuous and difficult to identify and pin down the exact sectors to which it will be applied.
The order was hidden among the huge amount of papers that came with the Budget statement on 29 November 1994. During a debate on the Budget resolutions on 5 December 1994, my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) raised the issue of the order's impact on the tourist industry as there was already some concern about that. During that debate he explained, in column 38, the problems being experienced by the British Tourist Authority, the cuts in its funding and the implications for tourism of the order. In reply to that debate the Financial Secretary to the Treasury said that the order stopped
favourable tax treatment for trips in hot air balloons, round trips in Concorde over the bay of Biscay, and so on."—[Official Report, 5 December 1994; Vol. 251, c. 108.]
The order was presented to the House then as a means of preventing further abuses and dealing with a category that had sneaked in, so there was nothing more to concern the House.
However, the matter was raised again in the Ways and Means debate on 13 December 1994—the mini-Budget or Budget part II as it has become known. The Government still did not seem to know exactly what the order would do. When challenged, the Chancellor said:
The Government have no intention and would never extend VAT to zero-rated goods"—
which the order covers—
without primary legislation.
The order is not primary legislation. When my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) challenged him during the debate that the order should be withdrawn and placed before the House as primary legislation, the Chancellor replied:
The extension of the VAT transport order was done partly under these resolutions and partly under the Finance Bill as well.
The Finance Bill was published on 4 January 1995 and these matters are not covered in that primary legislation. The House has been misled throughout the debates. We were told that VAT would be extended to zero-rated goods only through primary legislation, but there is no primary legislation before the House. The Chancellor went on to say:
The VAT zero rating on transport is designed to protect passenger transport. It has now been extended to air balloon rides, funfair rides, to things inside theme parks. This legislation covers anomalies of that kind "—[Official Report, 13 December 1994; Vol. 251, c. 802–805.]
I think that the Chancellor misled the House again because the order covers far more than that. The Chancellor promised that zero-rating would not be removed without primary legislation. That promise has been broken. It is not in the Finance Bill; it is in the orders which are before us today. The Chancellor and the Financial Secretary to the Treasury either did not know the exact extent of the order, or did not give the House all the available information when they were asked to clarify the situation. The effects of the orders are gradually becoming clearer.
Let us turn to the tourist industry.

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for giving way. I wish to clear up one matter. My right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor was quite clearly referring to major changes to VAT legislation. If the hon. Lady is complaining about marginal changes being made by way of orders, can she explain why the last Labour


Government did it three times? I have before me an order which removed certain food items from zero-rating because they fell into the category of biscuits. The last Labour Government did that by way of secondary legislation. Why is the hon. Lady complaining when Labour Governments have done the same thing?

Ms Primarolo: I am happy to debate what the last Labour Government did or did not do. If the Minister cares to put it before the House, we will engage in that debate. We are discussing undertakings that were given to the House a matter of weeks ago in parliamentary time about an issue that will have a considerable effect on the tourist industry. The Government are seeking to avoid the consequences of the decisions that they are making. Such is their desperation in moving constantly to indirect taxes to scrape in the money that they are not looking carefully at the implications of their actions for industries in this country.

Mr. Tyler: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for giving way. Does she accept that not only has the House been misled, but the tourist industry has not had a proper opportunity to take account of the Government's proposals and their implications, both in terms of the statutory bodies—the English tourist board and the regional bodies—and the operators? The Chancellor has misled not only the House but interested parties outside this place.

Ms Primarolo: I agree absolutely. I wish to turn to that point in my remaining remarks on the order.
The House has been misled. It is misleading to label the tax as one which affects only entertainment and recreation, as clearly business travel will also be affected to a large extent—particularly by the increased cost of transport in and around airports. Business tourism is currently experiencing very high levels of growth throughout Europe, and we need to be competitive in that sector.
That point is backed up in correspondence from Sir John Egan, chairman of the CBI's tourism working party and chairman of the BAA, to my hon. Friend the Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Pendry). Sir John made clear the damage that he believes that the decision will do to the tourist industry.
Since 1979, our trade surplus in tourism has turned into a £3.1 billion deficit. Meanwhile, our share of the growing world market has declined. If we had maintained the share of the market that we enjoyed in 1979—under a Labour Government—a further 150,000 jobs would have been created in tourism. Successive Tory Governments have become complacent about tourism. They have cut the budgets to the tourist boards in successive years, with this year being no exception, and they are now trying to apply an added tax burden to tourists in order to raise another £45 million. That is not a significant sum for the Treasury.
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury has dismissed our claims as scaremongering, saying that the decision will not affect other areas. This evening the Minister tried to skate over its implications for heritage and for museums. Since more than 60 per cent. of overseas tourists claim that they visit Britain for cultural reasons, it is ridiculous for the Government to apply a tax to the very items which attract tourists to this country.
The tourist industry has long been seen as a soft target, and Sir John and Richard Tobias, the chief executive of the British Incoming Tour Operators Association, make that point in their letters. It is interesting to read what the tourist industry representatives are saying. Richard Tobias said:
Clearly this is yet another example of one of Britain's most successful export industries being taxed to the point where we are becoming uncompetitive against our European neighbours".
Adele Biss from the British Tourist Authority said:
We are also stressing that the effect on our international competitiveness appears not to have been taken into account by this decision".
Sir John also said:
each new tax burden therefore is not a burden in isolation,"—
I am sure that every taxpayer in this country knows that—
but rather becomes an additional part of a cumulative burden that gnaws at the industry's competitiveness".
That is what British tourism is saying about this order's impact on the industry.
It was asked whether consultation had taken place on the issue, and the Minister replied that that had taken place. That is very interesting, because in a written answer on 12 December the Secretary of State for National Heritage said:
"The application of VAT is a matter for my right hon. and learned Friend, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who announced on 29 November that services relating to entertainment or recreational activities and car parking at airports, which include passenger transport, will become wholly standard-rated. The measure, which will affect a limited range of businesses, will not involve significant compliance costs … "—
I will return to that point later—
and it is not expected to affect international competitiveness."—[Official Report, 12 December 1994; Vol. 251, c.498.]
Clearly, at that time he had not spoken to the tourist industry. Of course, consultation was not considered necessary. We must compare his comments to those emanating from the tourist industry. Customs and Excise says that no compliance costs are necessary and that none is expected.
Those in the tourist industry have produced their brochures for the year and committed themselves to costs they cannot now avoid. They must either recall all their brochures, which would involve costs, or sustain the loss that the tax difference will make and endeavour to recoup it next year. No consultation was carried out with the National Heritage Department or with the industry before the order was introduced. The Government continue to claim their commitment to tourism, yet here they are undermining that very process.
I am sure that hon. Members will give many examples this evening, but I want to mention a couple of tourist attractions that will be damaged. I have received correspondence from the director of the slate caverns in Blaenau festiniog. Those who work there are angry and upset. They won an appeal in a VAT tribunal to keep zero-rating on their facilities in the slate caverns, but that tribunal is now overridden by the imposition of the order.
Mr. Jones, the director of the slate caverns, writes:
The Chancellor's actions could have come from the darkest depths of Stalinist Russia".
It is decorative wording from very angry people. He states that the caverns
have attracted 5 million tourists in the past 21 years, winning all Britain's top tourism awards and many international accolades.


He continues by explaining how he heard about the order:
We know of it only because a gleeful VAT officer telephoned before Christmas, saying Budget legislation was on its way to cancel a 1984 court ruling
and that the two rides provided in the caverns no longer constituted public transport.
Those working at the caverns expected to find the proposals in the Finance Bill because they had been told that the measures would be contained in primary legislation, but, after two days of looking at the Finance Bill, they discovered that that was not so and that the proposals were in a statutory instrument. They were then told by Customs and Excise that the document could not be faxed to them—time was running out and it had been pointed out that we would be debating it today—because that would be breaking Crown copyright. They had to order it from Norwich. They placed their order and they are still waiting for copies of the order that we are discussing tonight. Mr. Jones continued:
the vindictive intention is clear enough, i.e. to overturn the 1984 court ruling which we won on appeal. It is an act of revenge against a small company which makes a major contribution to the rural economy of North Wales".
The tax will add 87p to the entrance price of £4.95. They have already printed the price list so they are already committed for 1995 and they will have to sustain that loss. There was no consultation and they will have to face plenty of costs—all for £45 million to the Exchequer.
The historic national tramway museum is in a similar position. Somebody once said as a joke that this Government would tax air if they could find a way of doing it. They are certainly trying to tax at every opportunity our heritage and the time that people give freely to such institutions to maintain that part of our heritage. That time is now to be taxed. It is absolutely obscene.

Mr. David Winnick: Has my hon. Friend received correspondence about the Birmingham tramway museum? Is she aware that it will be a devastating blow to people in the west midlands, not just in Birmingham but in the surrounding areas, including my constituency, if the museum is to he penalised along the lines that she has described? It is a serious matter. I have received correspondence about it and have recently written to the Minister.

Ms Primarolo: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. A number of representations have been made. I was trying to spare the House the agony of going through every single one, because we would exceed the one and a half hours allowed for the debate. I have picked out two examples, but the clear intention of the order is to rake in money not on the basis of Concorde flights over the Bay of Biscay or hot air balloon rides, although it is questionable whether VAT needs to be placed on that.
I am interested to find out why VAT will not apply to glider flights, given that for the gliders to get up in the first place they have to be towed by an aircraft, to which VAT will he applied.

Mr. Bill Walker: Perhaps I can help the hon. Lady. The answer is that gliding clubs are non-profit-making organisations, which throughout Europe are exempt from VAT.

Ms Primarolo: With respect, that makes no difference under the order but I am sure that the Minister will clarify

that point. I hope that he will ensure that he uses precise wording and has a clear understanding of the points that his hon. Friends are raising with him before he gives a categorical assurance on the Floor of the House this evening because we take with several pillars of salt the word of any Government Minister about VAT.
Last summer the Chancellor wrote to one of his constituents about VAT on fuel. He made clear the Government's views on extending VAT on to zero-rated goods. It is advisable for all of us as Members of Parliament to answer only the questions that we are asked, as opposed to venturing speculation. The Chancellor wrote:
I have always thought that we attempt to exempt too many goods and services from VAT in this country. VAT is still imposed on a little over half of all sales, which is much more restrictive than the sale taxes in other countries.".
It is clear that the Chancellor wants to extend VAT and that it will continue to he an issue between now and the next general election, whenever that may be—I hope, sooner rather than later.
The Government continue to give undertakings on the Floor of the House and then break them. They attempt to mislead the House on the purposes of tax orders that are before us. They are driven desperately by the desire to increase indirect taxes, mainly through VAT, to advance a spurious and dishonest argument that they are the Government of reducing taxes. This is a tax too far. They are undermining the industries that they claim to support and I urge all hon. Members to vote against the order this evening.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): Order. Although no 10-minute restriction is now in operation, I appeal for short speeches.

Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: The hon. Member for Bristol, South (Ms Primarolo) sometimes overstates her case, even when she is making a point with which Conservative Members may agree. After all, anyone experiencing difficulty in obtaining a copy of the order could have contacted his or her Member of Parliament, who could easily have supplied it.
Many hon. Members on both sides of the House are concerned about the national tramway museum in Crich, which is in my constituency. I want to concentrate on the issue of consultation on the museum. My hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Mr. Lester) agrees with many of my views. I feel that my hon. Friend the Minister was less generous with the House than he should have been when he spoke of consultation on the order. It was made on 29 November, and laid before the House on the same clay; where was the time for consultation?
I believe that a number of anomalies will remain, given my hon. Friend's logic in the correspondence that we have had on this technical and complicated matter. Those anomalies have been sneaking into parliamentary answers, including written answers given by my hon. Friend the Minister to my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr. Luff) on 13 December. I do not understand why the Treasury's list of items that will remain zero-rated includes ferries, canal boat rides and other boat trips on public waterways, fishing trips and trips around harbours. If a boat went outside a harbour, would VAT be levied?
Mystery coach tours are also included. If people start a coach trip without knowing where they are going, that trip will be zero-rated; but a trip to the tramway museum in my constituency, providing a view of the Derbyshire hills, will be liable for VAT. I feel that such measures should be in the Finance Bill: the beauty of that would be the opportunity given to organisations to express concern. As it is, the measures are in an unamendable order.
I hope that, in his closing remarks—if he has time to make them—my hon. Friend the Minister will say that the Finance Bill may give us a chance to discuss any complications that arise from the order. I do not have time to deal with all the problems, because this is a short debate and other hon. Members wish to speak.

Dame Peggy Fenner: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. McLoughlin: Yes, I will.

Dame Peggy Fenner: I thank my hon. Friend for giving me a few moments in which to emphasise the value of the national tramway museum. Only it and the railway museum are allowed to call themselves "national".
Although my constituency does not contain such a museum, my constituents give up their time voluntarily to work there, raising money to build a beautiful new exhibition hall. They are very worried. Mr. Webster, for instance, came to my advice centre and said that he had known of the proposals for only a couple of weeks, and believes that his projects are in peril. His father was a tram driver, and his whole family go up to work on trams and raise money. Like my hon. Friend the Member for West Derbyshire (Mr. McLoughlin), I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will ensure that no anomalies affect such a wonderful volunteer organisation.

Mr. McLoughlin: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who has illustrated the amount of concern that exists. I know that my hon. Friend the Minister will take it on board.

Mr. Tyler: The hon. Gentleman is making a powerful case, but I think that the Minister should be asked to withdraw the order and table a Government amendment to the Finance Bill in Committee, providing an opportunity for the discussion and consultation that hon. Members on both sides of the House want.

Mr. McLoughlin: I do not think that that is likely to happen. I should be more than happy to receive an assurance from my hon. Friend the Minister that, if he considers the matter in more detail over the next few months and feels that a change in the Finance Bill is necessary, he will take such action.
The national tramway museum is a small, non-profit-making organisation. It has already printed its literature for next year. I do not want those who run it to have to put up a sign at the entrance saying, "These used to be the entrance prices until the Budget." We do not want an extra 17.5 per cent. added to the museum's charges—that would be rather unfortunate. If it happens to this museum, it will also happen to a number of others. That would not be of much benefit to the Government.
I had the privilege of serving as a Minister for some time. It is most unusual to have to take through the House a piece of legislation that directly impinges on one's own constituency—but that was what happened to me when I took the Transport and Works Bill through the House. The main aim of the Bill was to stop a considerable amount of private legislation being taken on the Floor of the House. I know that many hon. Members were grateful for that.
The Bill, however, also imposed on the national tramway museum the same legal requirements as those governing conventional tramways and railways. The orders meant that such museums were obliged to observe all the onerous legal requirements, including safety requirements, that were applicable to conventional tramways and railways. Now these places are to be treated more harshly under the taxation system than other tramways. That is unfair and inconsistent, and I hope that the Minister will tonight be able to offer us some reassurance on the Government's intentions.

Mr. Peter Snape: I shall confine my remarks to the second order. I endorse entirely what the hon. Member for West Derbyshire (Mr. McLoughlin) has just said; the fact that the national tramway museum is in his constituency serves only to add force to his comments.
Like the hon. Member for Medway (Dame P. Fenner), I, too, have had a letter from a constituent who has spent a lifetime in public transport in the west midlands. He retired recently and he spends a lot of his free time voluntarily helping out at the national tramway museum. Ken Sutton—he will not mind my naming him—writes to tell me that the effect of the order will be to add £35,000 a year to the running costs of the museum. Is that really what Ministers intended when they laid the order? If the order is approved tonight, heritage groups such as those who run the museum, largely voluntarily, will be treated far worse in taxation terms than profit-making tramway organisations in other parts of the country. That is manifestly unfair.
Earlier, the Minister twice said that he had been accused of introducing a bureaucratic imposition but that that description was untrue. Judging by the interventions in his speech, however, and by the speeches made since, that is what the House thinks of this order. The hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) asked the Minister—I suspect not with any great hope of success—to take the order away and to reintroduce it, if that is what the Government want, in prime time and on the Floor of the House so that we may adequately debate it and, just as importantly, so that proper consultations with those responsible for operating these places can be held.
Whether the Minister accepts it or not, this VAT order does entail bureaucratic impositions. Thanks to my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Shettleston (Mr. Marshall), I have been able to look at the press release published by the Department, where I find phrases such as "fun" or "historic" rides, "transport within theme parks", other places of "entertainment or historic interest", and so on. By no stretch of the imagination can the cost of moving someone from an airport car park to the terminal fall into any of those categories. I am left wondering why that addition was made. What impact will it have on legitimate business costs incurred at airports? To say the least, it is anomalous—I hope that the Minister


will accept that description—that airport car parking transfer charges are now to be subjected to VAT at 17.5 per cent.
Earlier, the hon. Member for Hampshire, North-West (Sir D. Mitchell)—a former Transport Minister—intervened to ask about a couple of railway lines in his constituency. It is obvious that he was satisfied with the Minister's response, because he is no longer in his place.
I, too, want to ask some questions about the imposition of VAT on preserved railway lines. I appreciate that the Minister replied fairly straightforwardly to his hon. Friend. The Watercress line and the Keighley and Worth Valley light railway have been mentioned, and it seems that charges will not he imposed on either line. Does that apply throughout the preserved steam railway sector? Does it apply to all journeys? I very much doubt whether it does. I think that the hon. Member for Hampshire, North-West accepted the Minister's assurance rather too quickly.
In the west midlands we have the Severn Valley railway. In the run-up to Christmas, the railway operates what it calls Santa specials. They start and finish at the same place. For much of the year, the Severn Valley railway operates dinner specials. Again, they start and finish at the same place. Passengers board the train at Kidderminster and they are taken to Bridgenorth. The locomotive runs around the train, as it were, and the train returns to Kidderminster. Would such a journey be subject to the imposition of VAT at 17.5 per cent? Would it come within the terms of the order? The Santa specials would fall within the terms of the order.

Sir Keith Speed: The Kent and East Sussex railway in my constituency runs similar Santa specials. In my youth, I was once a Santa Claus giving out presents to children. The trains go up and down the line, starting and finishing at the same place. The Wealden Pullman is an excellent example of what preserved railways are doing. Again, the train travels up and down the line and has no destination. A very agreeable meal is served on the train at a very agreeable price. The line does not make a profit, but it is an enormous tourist attraction. If the order is implemented, the railway will have to issue many different types of tickets for its many different activities. Surely that is nonsensical.

Mr. Snape: The hon. Gentleman illustrates the fact that the Treasury interferes in the preserved railway sector at its peril. I hope that the Minister will take up these fundamental questions. Will VAT be levied on such journeys?
I have another example of journeys that may be covered by the order unless he tells us, as I hope he will, that they will not. In the Birmingham area there is the Tyseley steam museum. The Flying Scotsman was there until comparatively recently. Are the journeys that are undertaken by locomotives in the museum to be subjected to VAT at 17.5 per cent. under the terms of the order? If they are, perhaps the Minister will explain why there has been no consultation with the organisations that I have mentioned.
The order will not do. The Treasury should not treat the House in this way. We heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, South (Ms Primarolo), who spoke from the Opposition Front Bench, about specific pledges that were given on the extension of VAT to the journeys that have been mentioned. The Government should, for

once, honour their pledges. They should take away the order and give us a proper opportunity to debate these matters in prime time. Equally importantly, they should give those responsible for levying charges and for advertising railway entertainments throughout the United Kingdom the opportunity to be consulted. Consultation has been conspicuous by its absence so far.

Sir Peter Fry: It is not often that the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) and I agree—we have often debated with each other on transport matters—but I endorse his closing words: it is still the job of Members of Parliament to examine legislation that is presented to us, to see whether it deserves to be passed. I contend that it is clear tonight that many hon. Members, on both sides of the House, feel that we should not just happily pass the order in its present form, without further consideration.
It seems odd to me that an order that is supposed to implement the will of Parliament and clear up anomalies instead creates an enormous number of extra anomalies. We have not even had a definition of public transport. Before we can possibly pass the order, we should at least know what is meant by "public transport".
I declare an interest as adviser to the coach industry action group, although it has not approached me on this point. I have received a letter from the confederation of passenger transport. It is very concerned and tells me that coach operators provide exclusive tours, which, for VAT purposes, fall under the tour operators' margin scheme. It wants to know—it wrote to Customs and Excise on 14 December—whether its exemption will continue. I think that it is fully entitled to an answer from my hon. Friend the Minister tonight, or before the legislation comes into effect.
This is one of the most discriminatory pieces of legislation that I have ever seen. Why, for example, are we picking out the aviation industry for a further clobbering? The industry—entirely within the private sector—has had a series of measures imposed on it by the Government and there is clear discrimination against it, as outlined in article 3 of the order. I would have understood had the Government said that, henceforth, any form of transport—I shall use the words in the order—that was not
primarily for the purpose of transporting passengers from one place to another
would cease to be exempt from VAT, but I would not necessarily have agreed with it, because, as hon Members have said, there are many forms of transport that should not have VAT applied to them.
Why do the Government use that phraseology only in respect of article 3, which would allow a range of other transport activities to remain exempt from VAT? Why, for example, should a trip by sea be exempt when a trip on an aeroplane will not? Certain activities will become much more expensive. Because of the lack of consultation and the way in which the order has been introduced, it is no wonder that many responsible bodies are very concerned.
One of those bodies is British Airways. It feels strongly that it has been picked out as part of the aviation industry for extra taxation. One of the points that it has put to me—I sincerely hope that my hon. Friend the Minister


will respond to it when he winds up the debate—is that the order contravenes, or could, the sixth VAT directive, 77/388 EEC, which decrees that the imposition of VAT must not discriminate. I defy anybody to read the order and not conclude that there is strong discrimination, particularly against the aviation industry.
I have been in the House for more than 25 years, and a number of squalid measures have been introduced, from the Treasury and from Governments—both Labour and Conservative. There are not many occasions on which there has been a spontaneous reaction on both sides of the House to any particular measure. My hon. Friend and the Government should come clean. If they really want to remove the exemption in article 3, they should at least have the courage of consistency and apply it right across the board to transport. They have not done that, I suspect for the reason that we have heard tonight—that many hon. Members will get up and rightly point out the damage that will be done by the imposition of VAT on the national tramway museum and local railway lines.
If the Government expect the House to pass the measure, they should accept the suggestion that it should be withdrawn and be part of the Finance Bill and the debates that we shall have in future weeks. If my hon. Friend expects the House happily to let what I regard as a somewhat mean little measure go through tonight, he will do so without my support.

Mr. David Marshall: The transport order is one of the daftest measures introduced by the Government in my time in the House, and that is saying something. It was made even worse when the Minister said that it is not the result of a European directive, so he is even deprived of being able to blame it on someone else. It is just another case of the Government building up a treasure chest to bribe the electorate in a pre-election Budget. That is the only possible explanation for their introducing this punitive measure.
I declare an interest as a sponsored member of the Transport and General Workers Union.
I fully agree with the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Sir P. Fry) that we have not yet had a definition of public transport, especially in its usual sense, particularly coach travel. I take it that coach travel as part of a holiday package is not public transport in its usual sense and therefore would be subject to VAT. That is worrying, particularly for Scotland whose largest industry is tourism and as such is important to it. Many thousands of tourists come by coach from England and Europe and many tourists who fly into Scotland travel by coach rather than drive themselves around. Those tourists spend between one day and three weeks in Scotland. Such holidays do not come cheap. Most cost many hundreds of pounds and some cost thousands of pounds in total. The imposition of 17.5 per cent. VAT on such holidays will substantially reduce the number of tourists coming to Scotland, as well as England, Wales and Northern Ireland. Businesses, particularly small businesses in remote and rural areas will suffer a great loss of revenue.

Mr. Bill Walker: The hon. Gentleman is wise to mention the importance of coach travel and the tourist industry in Scotland. Like me, he will be aware that the

tourist industry, particularly coach tours and especially those from England, has been down considerably in the past 12 months, which is worrying.

Mr. Marshall: For once, I could not agree more with the hon. Gentleman. This order could be the final nail in the coffin for many businesses.
It is a two-way trade because coach tours go from Scotland south of the border. Some hotels survive only because they are on the coaching trail and some tourist attractions are viable only because of coach tours. Mystery tours and coach excursions have been referred to and they are popular, particularly with families and the elderly, especially those on low incomes and people who live in cities, such as Edinburgh and Glasgow, and other industrial centres of Great Britain. They want to get out of the city into the country and coaches provide a relatively cheap way of doing so.
Many tours will now disappear as a result of the imposition of VAT and all that it will achieve will be to deprive people of some pleasure and to deprive many people of their livelihood. It will be harder for small businesses, coach operators and drivers to remain in employment.
Many small towns and villages depend almost entirely on coach tours for their livelihood. Car traffic and passing trade is all very well but it is the coach tours that make businesses such as hotels, restaurants, souvenir shops and takeaway food centres profitable.
Some examples in the Scottish scene spring readily to mind. The hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) will be familiar with them. Places such as Callander, Aberfoyle and Loch Katrine in the Trossachs are inundated with coach tours in summer and winter, especially at weekends. Woollen mills that sell the products of many rural areas also depend on coach tours and visitors to make a living: one thinks of Alva Glen and Culzean castle.
Coach tours to Blackpool illuminations are popular. There are hundreds of such tours, all of which will become uneconomic or will be put at risk as a result of the imposition of VAT. The National Trust for Scotland, too, has many hundreds of properties throughout Scotland—social attractions, historical attractions and garden attractions—and VAT will adversely affect all of them.
The whisky trail and visitor centres that attract many thousands of people from all over the world will be at risk too, because many of the visitors come by coach. It is worth noting that the whisky visitor centres employ more people than does the production of the whisky. That shows how important such attractions are to people and how important coach travel is. The measure is ill thought out and will turn out to be counter-productive. It discriminates especially against remote areas and against Scotland.
It is worrying, too, that VAT at 17.5 per cent. may be only the beginning. Can the Minister assure us that at some future date, if VAT is 22 per cent. or 25 per cent., the tax will not be increased? Of course he cannot. Things will be even worse when that day comes, as it surely will under the present Government.
Finally, can the Minister tell the House whether VAT will be levied on organised air trips to Lapland to see Santa Claus? Even Ebenezer Scrooge did not go that far. The order is not fair, just or logical, and the House should reject it.

Mr. Colin Shepherd: I perceive that the House is much exercised about excursions, but I shall speak about the Value Added Tax (Buildings and Land) Order 1994, and press as quickly as I can the point made by the hon. Member for Bristol, South (Ms Primarolo) when she asked for extra-statutory concessions.
Some organisations have been literally caught on the hop by the introduction of the measure. I understand that the Paymaster General has introduced it so speedily to stop what may be called end-play situations, but it is right that attention should be paid to the predicament of legitimate organisations caught on the hop.
For example, I am a council member of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons, appointed by the Privy Council, and accordingly I am involved with the college's acquisition of new premises in exchange for its old premises. It has acquired, through a property sub-company, a property to be purchased, but has not yet signed a lease with that company, so it is literally caught between stepping stones.
The arrangement that the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons was entering into was absolutely legitimate when it embarked upon that course. It was using the law as it existed, and was setting out not to avoid VAT but to spread it. That formed part of its calculations in making the transaction.
It seems to me that the order is targeted at lease and leaseback arrangements rather than at ordinary property leasing arrangements—certainly, the Customs and Excise briefing document suggests that it is. Yet it does not seem to have been possible to draft the order tightly enough to draw in only lease and leaseback, so property arrangements have been drawn into the net as well. That has penalised many companies that have entered into legitimate arrangements and then been caught out.
The royal college is now caught in the worst of all worlds. It has acquired the property, without the leasing arrangements, as a straight purchase. Had it done so outright as a straight purchase it could have recovered one third of the VAT, but now no VAT can be recovered. As a consequence of the order, the college will have to pay much more VAT to Customs and Excise than it would otherwise have done. I cannot believe that it is the intention to penalise persons caught on the hop in that way.
For those who are so caught, I suggest that the fair way forward is for them to be placed on a footing that leaves Customs and Excise receiving what it would have done had that part of the VAT remained recoverable. The RCVS would have been able to recover a third of its VAT. Under the order, Customs and Excise will receive 50 per cent. more than it would have done for a straight purchase. If the Treasury should have its due, it should not be the beneficiary of a 50 per cent. windfall.
As I understand it, the Minister has the power to make extra-statutory concessions. The number of companies or organisations caught in that way cannot be large, so I would like from my hon. Friend an assurance that he will entertain requests for an extra-statutory concession so that the injustice can be corrected and the genuine nature of transactions such as the one that RCVS has entered into can be reflected. Members of the RCVS are honourable people doing honourable things. The arrangement is not a

chipping arrangement or a short cut; it was done in all good faith. That ought to be reflected in the actions of the Treasury tonight.

Mr. Barry Field: I do not want to raise the question of theme parks and so on, but I understand from correspondence with my hon. Friend the Minister that the Isle of Wight steam railway will not be covered by the order because it charges for its tickets, not for admission. However, it is to the Isle of Wight that I wish to speak because we rely on our ferries to come and go from the island.
I am worried about the information given out by Customs and Excise about the order. Paragraph 3(b) says:
in any motor vehicle between a car park"—
or its vicinity—
and an airport passenger terminal".
That seems to me to be a hop, skip and a jump to transport from a car park to a ferry terminal, and that could include Ryde pier. That worries me enormously.
Paragraph 9 of the information says that the changes are unlikely to affect the present treatment of boat trips or ro-trains. It does not say that they will not. It does not say that they do not. It says that they are unlikely to affect it. That sort of language terrifies me when it comes from the Treasury. Paragraph 12 refers to pleasure flights including hot air balloon rides. I was puzzled as to why the Government thought that they could raise so much money from hot air balloons. I realised when I listened to the speeches of the Liberal Democrats that there was a whole new means of travel here and tremendous income was to be gained from hot air balloons.
As I understand it, the French and British Governments reached agreement on the VAT treatment of the channel link. If that train happened to go into Disneyland, it would become VATable under the order. That is extraordinary. Paragraph 12 refers to experience of flying. What about experience of boating? As I speak, the British Marine Industries Federation is putting on the international boat show. It has experience of boating. One can hear the tills clicking away over at the Treasury as they say, "Aha, another means of income." That is very worrying.
The nub of the matter is that we all know in the House that the moment we depart from a zero rate on VAT on anything within the EC structure, we are stuck with it. We can never go back to less than 5 per cent. My hon. Friend is either being a little disingenuous, has been misled by his officials or is playing with fire—or he is doing all three. By moving the Value Added Tax (Transport) Order 1994 he is inviting the EC to say that the United Kingdom has departed from VAT at a zero rate on public transport. It will rule that we must impose VAT at the minimum rate of 5 per cent. on all public transport. That is what really worries me. I believe that the price of freedom from taxation on the Isle of Wight ferries is eternal vigilance over the Treasury.

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: I will endeavour to answer the many questions raised during the debate. I think that I can give significant reassurance, especially to my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Field). I promise him that there is no intention of applying value added tax at the standard rate to the ferry services on which his


constituency relies. The essential feature of the Value Added Tax (Transport) Order 1994 is to return the situation to what Parliament intended when it granted zero-rating to public transport. We have drifted away from that and some forms of transport—trips in hot air balloons to name but one—have come under the umbrella of public transport and have claimed and been given zero-rated status when that was clearly not intended.
I find it a little strange that the Opposition should complain about features of the two orders which are designed to end loopholes and anomalies, when their entire shadow Budget was founded on the pretence that they could fund their expenditure ambitions through windfall taxes and ending loopholes.

Ms Primarolo: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: No. I am responding to points that have already been made, if the hon. Lady will forgive me.
When the Government introduce measures to end loopholes and anomalies, the Opposition complain about that in detail.

Ms Primarolo: On the question of primary legislation—

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: I will come to the hon. Lady's point in a minute, if I may just finish my argument. The Opposition complain about confusion in the orders, which I can well understand on their part, because they are in a good deal of confusion over their VAT ambitions. I find it strange that some of them at least wish to put VAT on education, yet they resist measures that return the zero-rating privilege for the public transport sector to what Parliament originally intended.

Ms Primarolo: The Minister will surely have noticed during tonight's debate that there is considerable disquiet on both sides of the House about the proposals in the Value Added Tax (Transport) Order 1994. Given the Chancellor's promise to the House that zero-rated VAT would be removed only by primary legislation, will he tell us why he cannot withdraw the transport order tonight and bring it back as an amendment to the Finance Bill, when it can be considered thoroughly, proper consultation can be undertaken and every hon. Member can satisfy himself of the exact intention?

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: I already pointed out in an intervention on the hon. Lady that all Governments, including a Labour Government, have used secondary legislation to make adjustments and alterations at the margin to the coverage and extent of value added tax. In 1976 and 1977, the Labour Government introduced exactly analogous measures—including one which I mentioned as an example—to remove from zero-rating certain items of food and confectionery. We are merely using the same methods of secondary legislation as were employed by the hon. Lady's party when it was last in office.

Mr. Tyler: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: I am sorry, but I owe it to my hon. Friends and to other hon. Members who raised matters in the debate to try to respond.

Mr. John Wilkinson (Ruislip-Northwood): Will my hon. Friend give way, as I was not able to raise this matter during the debate? I am grateful for his courtesy. Can he tell me whether the Ruislip lido railway, which runs within a recreational area, will be subject to standard rate VAT? One can either take a round trip and end up where one began, in which case I presume that one would be subjected to that rate, or one can go to the other end of the line and get off, in which case one would not. The latter journey would be zero-rated because it would be assumed to be transport, even though it is a distance of only three quarters of a mile down the line. Can my hon. Friend tell me, beyond peradventure, what the position will be?

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: My hon. Friend has not given me sufficient details to make a snap judgment about whether a facility in his constituency falls within the order. If he writes me a letter giving further details, I shall respond in due course.
In her opening remarks, the hon. Member for Bristol, South (Ms Primarolo) suggested that the buildings order would be retrospective. I have already assured her that it will not be. The order took effect from 30 November 1994, so leases entered into before that date are not affected. She also asked whether the provisions could be circumvented by use of a third party. On the information that she gave in her opening remarks, I would say that that would not constitute tax avoidance and would not be caught by the order. If she wants further details, she should write to me.
I understand the close interest which my hon. Friend the Member for West Derbyshire (Mr. McLoughlin) has taken in the national tramway museum. Admission charges to museums without transport are already liable to the standard rate. It was never intended to provide a tax advantage to places that happen to include, or take the form of, a ride. We are merely returning the museum to equal treatment with all other museums and places of interest. Nor will it mean different treatment for places of interest and places of entertainment, which would give rise to difficult borderline cases if we tried to distinguish between them.
Let us imagine, for example, a theme or safari park that sets up a mock Jurassic park attraction. Some would say that it is a matter of entertainment, while others would say that it is a matter of interest or education. In dealing with legislation, it must therefore be right to provide rules that go across the board and deal with all places of entertainment, museums and theme or safari parks.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hereford (Mr. Shepherd) mentioned the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons. He has written to me about that difficult case. I assure him that organisations or businesses caught innocently by the order may be granted an extra-statutory concession. However, I understand that that organisation tried to enter into an arrangement that clearly falls foul of the anti-avoidance provision. Indeed, it was the intention that before the cut-off date it should take advantage of a lease and leaseback arrangement, so I cannot assure my hon. Friend that we shall necessarily deal with it as sympathetically as those caught innocently. I shall look at the issue again, however, because of my hon. Friend's interest.
A number of other hon. Members, particularly the hon. Members for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) and for Glasgow, Shettleston (Mr. Marshall) spoke as though all coach and bus transport would suddenly become standard-rated. I assure them that that is not the intention. Indeed, many of the types of transport mentioned in the debate are already standard-rated. For instance, hot air balloons that go up with fewer than 12 passengers are already standard-rated. Therefore no change is in prospect.

Mr. Snape: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: No, I am sorry, but I want to try to answer my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Sir P. Fry), who asked whether air transport was, in principle, dealt with differently from surface transport. My hon. Friend would agree that a journey that goes from A to B has elements of public transport about it, because passengers could be transported not for pleasure but for the genuine motive of being transported from one place to another. In cases of pleasure flights round the Bay of Biscay in Concorde or whatever, that clearly cannot—

It being one and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings on the motion, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Question, pursuant to Order [16 December].

Question agreed to.

Resolved,
That the Value Added Tax (Buildings and Land) Order 1994 (S.I.,1994, No.3013), dated 29th November 1994, a copy of which was laid before this House on 29th November, be approved.

Motion made, and Question put,
That the Value Added Tax (Transport) Order 1994 (S.I.,1994, No.3014), dated 29th November 1994, a copy of which was laid before this House on 29th November, be approved.— [Mr. Bates. ]

The House divided: Ayes 236, Noes 198.

Division No. 36]
[9.45 pm


AYES


Aitken, Rt Hon Jonathan
Burt, Alistair


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Butcher, John


Allason, Rupert (Torbay)
Butter, Peter


Amess, David
Carlisle, John (Luton North)


Ancram, Michael
Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln)


Arbuthnot, James
Carrington, Matthew


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Cash, William


Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)
Channon, Rt Hon Paul


Ashby, David
Chapman, Sydney


Aspinwall, Jack
Churchill, Mr


Atkins, Robert
Clappison, James


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)
Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey


Baldry, Tony
Coe, Sebastian


Banks, Matthew (Southport)
Colvin, Michael


Bates, Michael
Congdon, David


Batiste, Spencer
Conway, Derek


Bellingham, Henry
Coombs, Simon (Swindon)


Beresford, Sir Paul
Cope, Rt Hon Sir John


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Cormack, Sir Patrick



Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Couchman, James


Booth, Hartley
Cran, James


Bowden, Sir Andrew
Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)


Bowis, John

Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)


Brandreth, Gyles
Davies, Quentin (Stamford)


Brazier, Julian
Deva, Nirj Joseph


Bright, Sir Graham
Devlin, Tim


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Dover, Den


Brown, M (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)
Duncan, Alan


Browning, Mrs. Angela
Duncan Smith, Iain





Dum, Bob
Maitland, Lady Olga


Durant, Sir Anthony
Malone, Gerald


Dykes, Hugh
Mans, Keith


Elletson, Harold
Martand, Paul


Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)
Marshall, John (Hendon S)


Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Evans, Roger (Monmouth)
Mates, Michael


Evennett, David
Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick


Faber, David
Mellor, Rt Hon David


Fabricant, Michael
Merchant, Piers


Fermer, Dame Peggy
Mills, Iain


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Fishburn, Dudley
Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)


Forman, Nigel
Moate, Sir Roger


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Monro, Sir Hector


Forth, Eric
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Freeman, Rt Hon Roger
Moss, Malcolm


French, Douglas
Needham, Rt Hon Richard


Gallie, Phil
Nelson, Anthony


Gardiner, Sir George
Neubert, Sir Michael


Garnier, Edward
Newton, Rt Hon Tony


Gillan, Cheryl
Nicholls, Patrick


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Norris, Steve


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)
Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley


Grylls, Sir Michael
Ottaway, Richard


Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn
Patnick, Sir Irvine


Hague, William
Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archibald
Pawsey, James


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Pickles, Eric


Hargreaves, Andrew
Porter, David (Waveney)


Harris, David
Powell, William (Corby)


Haselhurst, Alan
Rathbone, Tim


Hawkins, Nick
Redwood, Rt Hon John


Hawksley, Warren
Renton, Rt Hon Tim


Heald, Oliver
Richards, Rod


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Riddick, Graham


Hendry, Charles
Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm


Hill, James (Southampton Test)
Robathan, Andrew


Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)
Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)


Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Robinson, Mark (Somerton)


Howard, Rt Hon Michael
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)


Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)
Rumbold, Fit Hon Dame Angela


Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)
Ryder, Rt Hon Richard


Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)
Sackville, Tom


Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)
Sainsbury, Rt Hon Sir Tim


Hunter, Andrew
Scott, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas
Shaw, David (Dover)


Jack, Michael
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Jackson. Robert (Wantage)
Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian


Jenkin, Bernard
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Jessel, Toby
Shersby, Michael


Jones, Robert B (W Hertfdshr)
Sims, Roger


Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Key, Robert
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


King, Rt Hon Tom
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Kirkhope, Timothy
Speed, Sir Keith


Knapman, Roger
Spencer, Sir Derek


Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)
Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)


Knight, Greg (Derby N)
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Knox, Sir David
Spink, Dr Robert


Kynoch, George (Kincardine)
Spring, Richard


Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Sproat, Iain


Lang, Rt Hon Ian
Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)


Lawrence, Sir Ivan
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Legg, Barry
Steen, Anthony


Leigh, Edward
Stephen, Michael


Lidington, David
Stern, Michael


Lightbown, David
Streeter, Gary


Lord, Michael
Sweeney, Walter


Luff, Peter
Sykes, John


Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


MacKay, Andrew
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Maclean, David
Temple-Morris, Peter


Madel, Sir David
Thomason, Roy






Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)
Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John


Thornton, Sir Malcolm
Whitney, Ray


Thurnham, Peter
Whittingdale, John


Tredimick, David
Widdecombe, Ann


Twinn, Dr Ian
Wiggin, Sir Jerry


Viggers, Peter
Willetts, David


Waldegrave, Rt Hon William
Wilshire, David



Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Wakten, George
Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)


Walker, Bill (N Tayside)
Wolfson, Mark


Waller, Gary
Wood, Timothy


Ward, John
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)



Waterson, Nigel
Tellers for the Ayes:


Watts, John
Dr. Liam Fox and Mr. Simon Burns.


Wells, Bowen





NOES


Ainger, Nick
Foster, Rt Hon Derek


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Foster, Don (Bath)


Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)
Foulkes, George


Armstrong, Hilary
Fyfe, Maria


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Galbraith, Sam


Austin-Walker, John
Gapes, Mike


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
George, Bruce


Barnes, Harry
Gerrard, Neil


Barron, Kevin
Godman, Dr Norman A


Battle, John
Godsiff, Roger


Bayley, Hugh
Golding, Mrs Llin


Berth, Rt Hon A J
Gordon, Mildred


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Graham, Thomas


Bennett, Andrew F
Grant Bemie (Tottenham)


Bermingham, Gerald
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Berry, Roger
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Betts, Clive
Grocott, Bruce


Blunkett, David
Gunnell, John


Boateng, Paul
Hall, Mike


Bradley, Keith
Hanson, David


Burden, Richard
Hardy, Peter


Caborn, Richard
Harvey, Nick


Callaghan, Jim
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Henderson, Doug


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Heppell, John


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Hill, Keith (Streatham)


Campbell-Savours, D N
Hinchliffe, David


Chidgey, David
Hodge, Margaret


Chisholm, Malcolm
Hoey, Kate


Clapham, Michael
Home Robertson, John


Clark, Dr David (South Shields)
Hoon, Geoffrey


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Coffey, Ann
Illsley, Eric


Connarty, Michael
Ingram, Adam


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)


Corbyn, Jeremy
Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)


Corston, Jean
Jamieson, David


Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)
Janner, Greville


Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John
Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)


Dalyell, Tam
Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)


Darling, Alistair
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)


Davidson, Ian
Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)


Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'dge H'I)
Jowell, Tessa


Denham, John
Keen, Alan


Dewar, Donald
Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)


Dixon, Don
Khabra, Piara S


Dobson, Frank
Kilfedder, Sir James


Donohoe, Brian H
Kilfoyle, Peter


Dowd, Jim
Kirkwood, Archy


Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
Lewis, Terry


Eagle, Ms Angela
Liddell, Mrs Helen


Eastham, Ken
Livingstone, Ken


Etherington, Bill
Llwyd, Elfyn


Ewing, Mrs Margaret
Loyden, Eddie


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Lynne, Ms Liz


Flynn, Paul
McAvoy, Thomas





McCartney, Ian
Robertson, George (Hamilton)


McFall.John
Roche, Mrs Barbara


Mackinlay, Andrew
Rooker, Jeff


McLeish, Henry
Rooney, Terry


McMaster, Gordon
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


McWilliam, John
Ruddock, Joan


Madden, Max
Salmond, Alex


Maddock, Diana
Simpson, Alan


Mahon, Alice
Skinner, Dennis


Mandelson, Peter
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Marek, Dr John
Smith, Chris (Isl'ton S & F'sbury)


Marshal, David (Shettleston)
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


Marshal, Jim (Leicester, S)
Soley, Clive


Martlew, Eric
Spearing, Nigel


Maxtor, John

Spellar, John


Meale, Alan
Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)


Michael, Alun
Steinberg, Gerry


Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)
Stevenson, George


Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)
Stott, Roger


Milbum, Alan
Strang, Dr. Gavin


Miller, Andrew
Sutcliffe, Gerry


Morley, Elliot
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)
Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)


Mudie, George
Timms, Stephen


Mullin, Chris
Tipping, Paddy


Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon
Tyler, Paul


O'Brien, Bil (Normanton)
Vaz, Keith


O'Hara, Edward
Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold


Olner, Bil
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Parry, Robert
Wareing, Robert N


Patchett, Terry
Watson, Mike


Pearson, Ian
Wicks, Malcolm


Pendry, Tom
Wilkinson, John


Pickthail, Colin
Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)


Pike, Peter L
Wilson, Brian


Pope, Greg
Winnick, David


Powell, Ray (Ogmore)
Worthington, Tony


Prentice, Bridget (Lew'm E)
Wray, Jimmy


Prentice, Gordon (Pende)
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Prescott, Rt Hon John



Primarolo, Dawn
Tellers for the Noes:


Reid, Dr John
Mr. Joe Benton and Mr. Stephen Byers.


Rendel, David

question accordingly agreed to.

PETITION

Disport Project

Mr. Tom Clarke: Mr. Deputy Speaker, on behalf of my hon. Friend the Member for Monklands, East (Mrs. Liddell) and myself, I beg leave to present a petition to the House, signed by close on 10,000 of our constituents, in support of a very important group in Monklands. This group deals with people who are disabled and who are involved in sport, and it has found that its funding will be reduced so radically that it may not be able to continue its work. The petition states:
To the honourable the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in Parliament assembled.
The Humble Petition of Residents of Monklands District Sheweth
That the Disport Project has been very successful in assisting disabled in Monklands but its future is endangered by lack of resources.
Wherefore your Petitioners pray that your Honourable House will urge the Secretary of State for Scotland to ensure the maintenance of adequate resources for the continued running of this Project.
And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray, M. Wilkinson, 72 Craigend Drive.
I beg leave to present the Petition.

To lie upon the Table.

Community Care (Essex)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mir. Bates.]

Dr. Robert Spink: I begin by thanking all my colleagues from Essex who have turned up tonight to support the debate about Essex social services. I particularly thank my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Banks) who has sat on the Treasury Bench and therefore will not be able to contribute to the debate, and my right hon. Friend the Member for Braintree (Mr. Newton). By their attendance in the Chamber tonight, they show that they care for the vulnerable people in their constituencies, for whom they have worked assiduously for many years.
Tonight I wish to expose the real cost of Labour and Liberal control of Essex county council. That cost is measured in cuts in care, in residential homes and in home help. Those cuts impact on the most vulnerable peoplie in society: the old and infirm, disabled people, children who are in need and at risk, and, most cruelly of all, the terminally ill.
Essex county council received more money from the Government for community care than any other council, yet others are delivering community care successfully. We must ask why Essex is not able to succeed to the same extent. Tonight we will reveal the truly callous nature of socialism. I freely acknowledge that it is not callous by intent: the intentions are often good, but the impact of policies is often detrimental and brings about cuts such as the ones that we have seen in Essex which fall cruelly upon those who are most vulnerable. They are therefore callous policies; there can be no other interpretation.
In Essex, the facts are quite clear and unarguable. Labour and Liberal councillors lost £8.5 million from the social service budget through incompetence, improper control of the budget and bad policies. Those Labour and Liberal councillors are now making our vulnerable constituents pay for their mistakes. The county council should now take money from its £28 million reserves to restore levels of service this year. It should cut its profligacy rather than cutting care levels next year.

Mr. Eric Pickles: My hon. Friend brings news to the debate. Hon. Members will recall that, before Christmas, we were talking about £25 million-worth of balances. My hon. Friend may not be aware of it, but Essex county council responded in my local newspaper to our joint request to release the balances. I have the report in front of me, but I will summarise it.
The council agreed that £25 million was a large sum, but it said that it needed the money for various contingencies. They said that if it was a very bad winter there would be major problems. My hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Dr. Spink) and I were brought up in the foothills of the Pennines, where winters can he a bit nippy. We can tell the House that one can get an awful lot of snow shovels for £25 million. One can also get an awful lot of care for £25 million. We want to see some care delivered to our constituents.

Dr. Spink: It will be a very bad winter for the vulnerable people in our constituencies as a result of Liberal and Labour policies in Essex.
I quote from a letter dated 6 January from David Brackenbury, the chief executive of Southend trust hospital:
Essex County Council Social Services Department are experiencing budgeting problems … The current position is that we have 24 patients who have been assessed as needing social care support and being fully capable of being discharged from hospital who have not been discharged simply because Social Services have refused to provide the appropriate package of care on financial grounds. This is an escalating position which started in late November and is growing at the rate of 2 or 3 patients per week.
That results in the phenomenon of bed blocking, and blocked beds are lost beds.

Mr. John Whittingdale: Is my hon. Friend aware that on Monday I visited the casualty unit at Colchester general hospital, where I was informed that staff were unable to admit patients into beds because they could not discharge geriatric patients who were occupying those beds, due to lack of community care? The problem is already arising as a result of mismanagement by Essex county council.

Dr. Spink: I am delighted to hear that intervention. I give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Rochford (Dr. Clark).

Dr. Michael Clark: I am most grateful to my hon. Friend, and I congratulate him on securing the debate. While we are talking about bed blocking, is he aware that, in Southend, Essex county council care homes that were renovated recently at great expense were closed in November due to lack of funds? My constituents wrote to me saying that they were closed due to lack of Government funding. I wrote to the director of social services at Chelmsford, and he confirmed that it was not lack of Government funding, which had been adequate; it was simply overspending by the Liberal-Labour council.

Dr. Spink: Those two interventions prove my case. It is not just social service client groups that are suffering from Labour and Liberal mismanagement. It is not just the taxpayers in Essex; it is everyone in Essex who may have the misfortune of needing hospital care over the coming months. We shall all suffer as a result of Labour and Liberal mismanagement.
Castle Point borough council had budgeting difficulties in the early 1990s, when budgets were overspent by £2.4 million.

Mr. Andrew Mackinlay: The books were fiddled.

Dr. Spink: The hon. Gentleman makes a seated intervention, and he is right. The books were fiddled, I am told, by the treasurer of the borough council, who lost his job as a result.
The budget overspend took place without the councillors' knowledge, and was not a result of profligate policies, as was the case in Essex. The borough treasurer moved funds between various accounts quite improperly. He covered up the problem, and left the borough council's employment as a result.
Castle Point councilors—[Interruption.] yes, they were Tory councilors—and council staff then had to repair the situation. The councillors took a cut in their allowances—they did the honourable thing—and council

staff took a 6 per cent. cut in their wages. Everyone, from the chief executive right down to the cleaner, took a pay cut.
Castle Point councillors took every penny from their reserves and spent the money to support service levels, as Essex should do. They also cut staff numbers dramatically. They took all that difficult action to minimise the impact.

Mr. Mackinlay: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): Order. I do not recall calling the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) yet.

Dr. Spink: They took difficult action to minimise the impact of the budgetary problem on the people they represented. Unlike Castle Point councillors, the Essex Labour and Liberal councillors have not done the honourable thing. Indeed, they are increasing social service management salaries and wages by a massive amount. The people of Essex resent their double standards and hypocrisy.
When Castle Point had a budgeting difficulty, members of the Labour and Liberal parties said that, as £2.4 million had been lost, the councillors involved should resign and repay the money. Now that Labour and Liberal councillors have lost £8.5 million, their political friends—and the councillors themselves—have forgotten all about those calls for resignations and repayment.[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) persists in making seated interventions. Let us hear him call for the resignation of his colleagues in Essex. He will not do so.
Labour now even has the gall to rub salt in the wounds of vulnerable people by making unnecessary cuts in services, but refusing to use its ample balance of £28 million. That is shameful, but typical of Labour councillors.
Conservative Councillor Joe Pike speaks for the people of Essex. He really cares, and he is competent—unlike the Labour chairman of social services, who, sadly, is floundering. He is following a hard-left, dogmatic, socialist agenda. That is the major problem in Essex. Brin Jones of Langdon Hills has explained that the Labour chairman of social services wasted the extra money given by the Government on hare-brained schemes.
Those daft socialist schemes, which are robbing vulnerable people in Essex, include a blanket home care charging policy that does not take into account ability to pay. That scheme resulted in a loss of £1.25 million. The council sent young thugs and burglars abroad on holiday; they were sent on Center Parc holidays, accompanied by very happy and enormously grateful social workers. Incidentally, the lucky social workers did not always do their job of supervising the young criminals very well: one of those young criminals spent a few days on a robbery spree in a Center Parc, totally out of control.
Essex spent thousands of pounds of taxpayers' money sending council officers abroad—to Canada, for instance—to recruit expensive foreign social workers to tell us Essex people how to run our lives. As if we British people were not capable of caring for ourselves, our old and frail people and our children! As if we British were so impoverished of skills, abilities and enthusiasm that we needed to go begging abroad to fill simple social worker jobs! What rubbish. In their expensive foreign recruitment


policy, Labour and Liberal councillors reveal their abject contempt for the people of Essex—and the people of Essex will show what they think of them at the next election.
Then there is the £368,000 that Essex Labour councillors have spent on new office-based social service posts. Those are not posts at the sharp end of caring for real people; they are very questionable posts, which some would describe as politically correct, relating to the European Union social chapter. Essex is even spending £100,000 on employing psychologists. It might be said that that is the job of social services, but the psychologists are intended not to help vulnerable people in Essex but to help social services staff themselves—managers and social workers who claim to be highly stressed. If Essex social service managers and workers are so unstable that they require professional psychologists to help them, it is little wonder that they get it so wrong so often, and waste so much taxpayers' money.
Let me give just one example—there are many—of social services' wasting money by their errors. A child was taken into care in my constituency at a cost of over £100,000. When the case came to court, Essex social services were severely criticised by the judge, who told them that they had no reason, cause or right to remove the child. The child was immediately restored to his parent.

Mr. Mackinlay: A Tory council was in power then.

Dr. Spink: There are other such cases in Essex. I had a meeting with the director of social services in Essex in December.

Mr. Mackinlay: The Tories were in control.

Dr. Spink: The director of social services told me that the social services department had been given a reasonable amount of money by the Government. But he also said that social services had experienced budgeting difficulties—[Interruption.]—and there had been an overspend—[Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I must ask the hon. Member for Thurrock to remain quiet for the rest of the evening.

Dr. Spink: I am indebted to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
The director assured me that this mismanagement would not recur next year. He subsequently wrote a four-page article in the Evening Echo of 20 December, mentioning nowhere that Essex had received inadequate money from the Government—he did not even hint at it. He simply referred to an overspend on the budget which Essex had incurred, and the need to get the budget "back on track". During his meeting with me, he informed me that last year's social services budget had been underspent, so this year he had followed the Labour and Liberal policy of "stimulating spending" in the private sector. Presumably he did this to force up spending, because the council did not want to underspend for a second year, thinking, rightly, that that would run the risk of the budget being cut. That is Labour and Liberal policy: take as much as they can from people and spend it profligately.
The director also told me that Essex had followed a policy of awarding contracts to the best tender from the private sector for home placements. Most other county councils capped costs at county council level, plus a small

additional percentage. The director said that this was perhaps a wrong policy, which would be reconsidered in future, and that it had certainly caused a haemorrhaging of funds from the county council.
Finally, I want to concentrate on caring, which is what this debate is all about. I quote the director's own memorandum of 8 November:
Some people will not get all the care that they are assessed as requiring".
I believe that this policy may put the council outside its statutory obligations to my vulnerable constituents. It certainly puts socialist and Liberal councillors outside their moral obligations to their electorate.
I therefore call on the Labour and Liberal parties in Essex to use a small part of our reserves—it is our money, and the £28 million is ample for the purpose—to help vulnerable people this year. They should also cut the number of jobs in management and administration, and cut salaries, too. I suggest that they cut them by 6 per cent.—the Castle Point precedent. But they must make no cuts at all at the sharp end of caring.
It is disgraceful that not a single Liberal Member has come to the Chamber for tonight's debate. That just shows how much they care. I give way now to my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon (Mr. Amess).

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Mr. David Amess.

Mr. David Amess: My hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Dr. Spink) has done the House, Essex and the country a great service by describing in graphic detail the consequences when the two socialist parties, Labour and the alliance, share a political bed. People suffer.
What the socialists in Essex have done is disgraceful. I have suggested before that they should resign because of their incompetence. If they are not prepared to resign—I have looked into these procedures—I shall attempt to activate a process that will lead to the impeachment of these county councillors. Lord Melville was impeached, and I see no reason not to call on those procedures again if the councillors are not prepared to resign.
It is well known that our right hon. Friend the Prime Minister had the privilege of visiting my constituency last spring, when he also visited one of the finest hospitals in the country—Basildon hospital, where he opened two new wards in the new maternity unit. He would be horrified to see the evil consequences of socialist mismanagement in Essex.
While we still had a good Conservative council in Essex, in 1993, there was an agreed procedure for the assessment of the care in the community needs of hospital patients who were ready for discharge. In October 1994, however, the Essex social services department took the unilateral decision to review its approach to meeting the community care needs of patients as a result of overspending in October. What incompetence. It had overspent only half way through the year. No one was consulted about the decision. As a result of mismanagement, there are 77 beds—

Mr. Mackinlay: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: It had better be a proper one.

Mr. Mackinlay: I think it is, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
The hon. Member for Castle Point (Dr. Spink) gave way to the hon. Member for Basildon (Mr. Amess). You did not call the hon. Member for Basildon, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I think that I am correct.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: It is clear that the hon. Member is feeling pretty fresh this evening. With respect, the Chair decides who is called, not the hon. Member for Thurrock.

Mr. Mackinlay: But the hon. Member for Castle Point gave way to the hon. Member for Basildon.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: What the hon. Member for Castle Point (Dr. Spink) said is entirely for him. I called the hon. Member for Basildon (Mr. Amess).

Mr. Amess: As a result of Essex county council's mismanagement, there are 77 beds blocked in Basildon. That is having enormous repercussions for treatment in the accident and emergency unit and the way that patients are being cared for. Socialist county councillors in Essex and socialist Members should be ashamed of themselves in view of the anxiety that is being caused to many of our constituents in Essex.
I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will share our message, which was so eloquently delivered by my hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point, and that socialist county councillors in Essex will resign, so that we can return to good, sensible Conservative control of Essex county council.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. John Bowis): My hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Dr. Spink) has led a positive cavalry charge for common sense in community care for his constituents and for the people of Essex generally. With him have ridden my hon. Friends the Members for Basildon (Mr. Amess), for Colchester, South and Maldon (Mr. Whittingdale), for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. Pickles) and for Rochford (Dr. Clark).
I acknowledge also the presence of my hon. Friends the Members for Harwich (Mr. Sproat), for Saffron Walden (Mr. Haselhurst), for Colchester, North (Mr. Jenkin) and for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman). The hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) has looked on. Also present has been my right hon. Friend the Member for Braintree (Mr. Newton), the Leader of the House. My hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) has been in his place. Convention does not permit him to participate, but he has spoken. telephoned and written to me on behalf of his constituents on this important subject.
Our song tonight is one of a successful policy that has been marred by poor local implementation. Community care is one of the Government's great success stories. It is popular with the public, who are flocking to apply for its benefits. It is saluted by all experts, all observers and all parties. It has been acknowledged by every independent monitor to have got off to a good start.
Local authorities asked for and were given responsibility for the policy's implementation, and on the whole they have done well. That has been in no small part due to the generous funding that the Government have

provided for the early years of the new policy. It is for local authorities, which welcomed the introduction of the reforms, to exercise good financial control to ensure that they deliver good quality, cost-effective services through the greatly increased resources that have been made available.
That is not only my view for it is the view of the independent and authoritative Audit Commission. In its report it warned of the need for better financial control to handle fluctuations in demand and to ensure that the financial consequences of past commitments are fully understood. Significantly, it called on local councils to make better use of independent sector provision, which is often better in quality and cost than state provision. That is vital if more flexible services, often linked to devolved budgets, are ready to take root. As the Audit Commission rightly says, the large sums involved must be handled with maximum efficiency and effectiveness to provide the best possible services.
We must take to heart too the lessons set out in today's Audit Commission report, "Paying the Piper", which shows the potential for savings of about £500 million a year if local government managed its pay bill better. The Audit Commission points out that £500 million could be saved without cutting front-line services. That is a lot of money, which could be available for services such as community care in Essex as in any other authority in this country.
I believe that we have funded community care fairly and responsibly, and nowhere is that more true than in Essex. When I hear that Essex socialist and Liberal councillors are complaining about a lack of resources, I thank heaven that, last May, my electors in Battersea ensured the continuation of a Conservative council in Wandsworth.
What are the inadequate resources? A few hundred thousand pounds? A couple of million? One or 2 per cent. above inflation? Or has there been a cut? No, there has been a massive increase of 22 per cent. this year for Essex in the total social services allocation, and an extra £32 million.
In 1991, Essex had social services resources of £89.54 million. This year, it has £174.89 million. Next year, it will have £192.35 million. Essex has gained in cash terms and in real terms. It gained £3 million from our changes to the distribution of the special transitional grant. It gained £6.2 million from the review of the standard spending assessment. In other words, Essex's slice of the national cake is £9.2 million higher this year than it would have been under the old allocation formula. Essex is not a loser.
Let me tell my hon. Friends, I have some sympathy with the director of social services in Essex when I read the report that he wrote for the social services committee, which, coincidentally, met today. As I understand it, he identified pressures on his budget of some £1.5 million to £1.9 million, and currently projects an overspend of some £1.4 million for this year. He seems to be taking a number of prudent measures to reduce that pressure. I must ask my hon. Friends, who must ask their elected councillors in Essex: why does he have such pressures? He does not appear to be helped by the policies being pursued by his political masters. Let me give some examples; my hon. Friends have given others.

Mr. David Hinchliffe: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Bowis: No. This is my hon. Friend's debate, and it is for me to answer my hon. Friend's points.
I understand that one of the first things that the new county administration did on coming into office was to introduce a blanket charge for home care of some £4.25 per week, regardless of how many hours' service was provided. I understand that it is estimated that that change alone has probably lost the council some £1.25 million in income.
Secondly, there has been an increase in bureaucracy, with the appointment of administrative staff to the tune of some £368,000. Thirdly, the council seems to have stopped reviewing its homes and selling off those that are not up to standard to reinvest in the social services budget. If, as I suspect, that is a symptom of a reluctance to use the independent sector, which frequently gives better value for money, more choice and more flexibility to individual users, that is regrettable and short-sighted. Fourthly, I am informed that the unwillingness to do business with the independent sector is even more marked in relation to domiciliary and day care, where there appears to be a dogmatic preference for the in-house services.
Those are the policies that give social services a bad name. They give poor value for money. I wonder how many of the new county councillors will go out and explain to elderly and vulnerable people in Essex, who are looking to them for help and support, that the projected expenditure in 1994–95 on support services is likely to be £1.3 million above the original budget, whereas, by chance, an almost identical amount seems to have been taken out of field work services and adult residential care for disabled and mentally ill people.

Mr. Hinchliffe: Will the Minister give way on that point?

Mr. Bowis: Let them explain that to the people of Essex.

Mr. Hinchliffe: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The Minister is not giving way.

Mr. Bowis: The convention is, I believe, that, if any hon. Member wishes to intervene, he should have the courtesy to check with the hon. Member who initiated the Adjournment debate.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point for his excellent speech and my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon for his. I am not sure that I can promise him the impeachment. I am not sure, even with my right hon.
Friend the Leader of the House present, that I would know the procedures on which the House might embark if it were even to consider that.
I tell my hon. Friends to take back to the people of Essex the Government's commitment to care for those in need. Reassure them that we have put our money where our policy is for community care. Remind them that its implementation is the responsibility of the county councillors whom they elected. Tell them the truth, the facts and the figures.
Tell the people of Essex the truth about the resources that the Government have provided and the way in which those resources are being managed by the elected councillors. Tell them about the priorities of those councillors who put bureaucracy before services and dogma before people in need. Tell them that, if Essex is not delivering on its social services, the fault lies within Essex and at the doors of the leaders of their county council, and invite the people of Essex to hold those leaders to account.

Mr. David Hinchliffe: I am grateful to be called briefly to make one specific comment. I am surprised that the Minister has made no reference to the fact that, as I understand it, in January 1993 his Department expressed concern about the lack of preparation of Essex county council social services department for the community care changes. Will he confirm that point, say why that concern was expressed and say whether it is true that, at that stage, the Department of Health threatened to move in directly to manage the community care changes in Essex, at a time when I understand that the Conservatives were in control of Essex county council?

Mr. Bowis: What I confirm is that many local authorities sought and received assistance, advice and guidance at the time of the implementation of the policy, and, at the time of it coming into force, it was up and running in Essex as elsewhere. What we are talking about tonight is the way in which the massive increase in resources that the Government have provided for the county of Essex has not been provided for community care and the people in need of such care.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-nine minutes to Eleven o'clock.